Hi Simon! zimoun writes: > Is it possible to currently build the packages using Emacs-Guix? > > And if you talk about ‘guix-devel-build-package-source‘, it needs before > to ’run-geiser’, I guess. Yes, using guix-devel-build-package-source, or even building by writing Scheme code in the Guix REPL. >> - https://gitlab.com/emacs-geiser/geiser/-/issues/9 > > 8 months is bunch of time but not a while. :-) Actually 9 months, but the issue has been there forever. The problem is the Schemers are just painfully dealing with the status quo. I believe we need to address this. Geiser is lagging behind by far, compared to what SLIME, SLY, racket-mode and CIDER can offer. >> - https://gitlab.com/emacs-geiser/geiser/-/issues/11 > > 3 weeks is not a while, neither. ;-) Which 3 weeks? I think you looked at Maxim's comment :p The issue was also opened 9 months ago. >> I'd like insist: in the current state of Geiser, we cannot leverage it >> reliably in Emacs-Guix. We need to talk to Guix directly, e.g. with >> `guix repl` like I've done in Nyxt. > > For all what “guix-popup” does, maybe pipe to “guix repl” should > simplify. But I do not see how one could work interactively without > Geiser; for example piping to “guix repl” can not fix your concern about > “Traces are not interactive”, fixing Geiser can. Yes, but my point is that since traces are mostly useless as it is now, we don't lose any benefit by using `guix repl'. We have 2 options: - Fixing Geiser, which might take a long time, leaving us with a broken emacs-guix for the time being. It's not even clear that it can be done without rewriting everything. - Or use `guix repl`, which is known to work, already has working code out there, and can be deployed in a week or two. I find the second option more attractive. We can always go back to Geiser at some point in the future when it gets more reliable. Cheers! -- Pierre Neidhardt https://ambrevar.xyz/