From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36615) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gC8mb-000788-QG for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:44:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gC8mY-00066U-M2 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:44:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:47226) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gC8mY-00066D-Gg for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:44:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gC8mY-0002ep-8x for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 15:44:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#33010] [PATCH 2/3] gnu: Add guix-minimal. Resent-Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 14:43:08 -0500 From: Eric Bavier Message-ID: <20181015194308.GP117864@pe06.us.cray.com> References: <20181011015246.24964-1-ericbavier@centurylink.net> <20181011015246.24964-3-ericbavier@centurylink.net> <87a7ngdx25.fsf@gnu.org> <20181015092143.0ce224d4@centurylink.net> <87tvlnc8m8.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87tvlnc8m8.fsf@gnu.org> 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: 33010@debbugs.gnu.org On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 09:28:31PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Eric Bavier skribis: > > > On Sun, 14 Oct 2018 23:42:58 +0200 > > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > >> I wonder whether we should add packages “just” for this, especially > >> given that 2.0 support is reaching end-of-life and that 2.0.13 is pretty > >> old. > > > > This package would be updated as needed to reflect changes in Guix > > dependencies. > > OK. It does sound like an interesting CI job, but maybe not great as a > package users can install. Though of course we can mark it as hidden > and then it’s just an easy way to write that CI job. Thoughts? I think marking it "hidden" would be fine. Do the build farms automatically build hidden packages too? -- Eric Bavier, Scientific Libraries, Cray Inc.