From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46237) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eq79D-00075x-3I for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:00:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eq799-0005sQ-5A for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:00:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:52889) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eq799-0005sA-1B for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:00:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eq798-0000PK-LB for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2018 20:00:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#30469] [PATCH 0/1] Require Guile >= 2.0.14 Resent-Message-ID: Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 18:59:24 -0600 From: Eric Bavier Message-ID: <20180225151831.1b413f51@centurylink.net> In-Reply-To: <87k1v280yz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20180215152627.4695-1-ludo@gnu.org> <20180224083032.4f5f1e36@centurylink.net> <87k1v280yz.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/7dbrYB8TPJvP3mPb=OhPMdO"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 30469@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/7dbrYB8TPJvP3mPb=OhPMdO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 23:41:24 +0100 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > Hello, >=20 > Eric Bavier skribis: >=20 > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:26:27 +0100 > > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > > =20 > >> Hello Guix, > >>=20 > >> This patch is to require Guile >=3D 2.0.14, released one year ago, ins= tead > >> of 2.0.9, released in 2013. > >>=20 > >> For the record, here=E2=80=99s the distro status: > >>=20 > >> =E2=80=A2 Debian unstable has 2.2: > >> . > >>=20 > >> =E2=80=A2 Older Debian versions have 2.0.13 (not .14): > >> . =20 > > > > How much of this patch would change if it were to instead support > > 2.0.13? Is cutting off users of Debian stable a good idea? =20 >=20 > I=E2=80=99ll double-check but I think the patch remains valid if we requi= re > 2.0.13. >=20 > If it works I=E2=80=99ll commit that next week. Cool. >=20 > >> I=E2=80=99d also like it to be the last release that support Guile 2.0= . =20 > > > > Same question. =20 >=20 > 2.2 is becoming quite widespread in distros. >=20 > Overall it=E2=80=99s a cost/benefit tradeoff, and we have to take into ac= count > that most users get Guix using the binary tarball or GuixSD. Right. But this can also become self-fulfilling. If we make it too hard for people to build from source, the binary tarball becomes more and more the only option. >=20 > Thanks for your feedback, Thanks for humoring me. `~Eric --Sig_/7dbrYB8TPJvP3mPb=OhPMdO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEoMXjUi7471xkzbfw/XPKxxnTJWYFAlqTW+wACgkQ/XPKxxnT JWY7gw/+LMohftkeO99tifvhnjCsu7vRAi6LPM4PFfR+GLUNf1Hl56UNWavO6omC EYB5EdL92WRUEPXZtnk+OzxqQzBUkm0R2xwtBBSHsBPplcByhSxFr7c/yvCfsOQG ky3KDw9Lsh1PI+sad8VTNErzKvJ111M250M2MOFZw7T/1cfhuHXX11fFEAdcJk8N AE4KUSipbYdIpHSUrcasBpMcWR8H22IexXNfIg9Jj86/+hsBbsi+dOhouEb5S7fo /kuzxvm2AgcooTRF5uIx3TDXqdrgRTvO8chxWdAwxoPSTSgwNOus4rvvmsFE0rIC Hl8QDnDMbTgM1POIq+OfwbiQvyYj9bj1TwoLgCsoJOFupAygPrMS/hXUEa8/BiM7 h/3y+nbsDGMuoOd5ZqW//uCbaDx9uRPVkWdut2IAKkPC5rnEjS0LsI2+ediYgQW4 GufGahYlbFyOWirsCr76Pg9II/IZzA5tuyaO1wSi9AhsOjfYbff3s4fo16RHGcgk 2NPPZvzrakalCrogy506mVnrRUB8vlStyRkscGXDWcTPi8UYE3RcCrIpxiBsyvEI FkF4i+GIydCq4CDImyMCA080IdXDCwbOGY3PL04uImyGGO0r4oJvHlN+ksmanqqc ch/SZKOJAi62B26rvQrshry3fN7Z6t4DhZGK0vLrzLbhMbhpOHM= =B7yN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/7dbrYB8TPJvP3mPb=OhPMdO--