From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Jordan Subject: Re: [PATCH] add go@1.6 Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 06:11:11 -0400 Message-ID: <87bn1iysw0.fsf@guixsd-mailerver.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> References: <87d1lyzlga.fsf@guixsd-mailerver.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <1469667655.4000333.678845385.2261EF5D@webmail.messagingengine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59153) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSiHq-0002TU-Df for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 06:11:31 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSiHl-00005E-FH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 06:11:30 -0400 Received: from forward4o.cmail.yandex.net ([37.9.109.248]:43860) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bSiHk-0008VO-3Q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 06:11:25 -0400 In-reply-to: <1469667655.4000333.678845385.2261EF5D@webmail.messagingengine.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Alex Griffin Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org >> (version "1.6.2") I'll update the version in an updated patch. Assuming no problems I'll be happy to submit it. >> (zero? (system* "sh" "all.bash"))))) > > This seems to work, but I think it should just be `(zero? (system* > "./all.bash"))`. It has a shebang, and expects bash, not sh. Doesn't sh already handle picking the shell/interpretor? That's why I put it there. sh or an sh compatible shell is usually the first to start. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. > If it doesn't cause any problems, we should delete pkg/bootstrap/* so > that it doesn't retain any references to go@1.4. I think that would > drastically reduce the size of its closure. I'll look into this and get back to you. > Also, I'm not sure I'm sold on splitting up into multiple outputs, but I > haven't thought about it much and don't have a strong opinion. The > "tests" output is only 5M and "doc" is only 10M, vs 270M for the default > output. This sounds like the beginning of a long conversation. Suffice to say it's doesn't bother me either way. However I would rather change this in later patch, if it has to be changed. Respectuflly, Matthew Jordan