From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: Mention "guix pull" during installation. Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 12:00:33 +0100 Message-ID: <87inqho626.fsf@gnu.org> References: <82b3233597949c866c26628054117ee3@mykolab.ch> <20161217173856.GA30440@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36029) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cIZCp-00035D-68 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 06:00:40 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cIZCm-00071Y-1b for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2016 06:00:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20161217173856.GA30440@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:38:56 -0500") 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: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Petter Hello! Leo Famulari skribis: > I've recently gave an explanation of why I think using `guix pull` > before installing GuixSD should not be recommended unconditionally: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/2016-11/msg00047.html > > In the specific case of installing GuixSD 0.11.0 today, `guix pull` is > necessary, because we lack the substitutes, and some packages can't be > built at all now [1]. But, adding these lines to the manual now won't > make it show up in the 0.11.0 installer manual. > > I think we should work on improving our infrastructure in the next > release cycle, and revisit this change to the manual if we are still > having problems before the 0.13.0 release. > > What does everyone think? I agree with everything you wrote here. Ludo=E2=80=99.