From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?B?VG9tw6HFoSDEjGVjaA==?= Subject: Re: Bumping the Guile version requirement Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 10:17:33 +0200 Message-ID: <20150510081733.GD1683@venom.lan> References: <20150430074219.GA572@jocasta.intra> <87r3r1dzra.fsf@gnu.org> <20150501151439.GA8466@intra> <874mnqwzb7.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhh0pe2v.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <876182qqaw.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Km1U/tdNT/EmXiR1" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47812) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YrMQd-0004vm-Aw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2015 04:17:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YrMQZ-0001qF-QZ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2015 04:17:38 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42024 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YrMQZ-0001mv-JC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 10 May 2015 04:17:35 -0400 Received: from relay1.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D201ABC6 for ; Sun, 10 May 2015 08:17:34 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <876182qqaw.fsf@netris.org> 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: guix-devel@gnu.org --Km1U/tdNT/EmXiR1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:21:27AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: >ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > >> I think for 0.8.2 I will actually bump the requirement to Guile 2.0.7 or >> 2.0.9 (the latter is what Debian 8 has.) People on older systems will >> still be able to install Guix using the binary tarball. >> >> What do people think? > >Sounds good to me. The binary tarball should probably be the preferred >method for installing on top of other distros anyway. Why? =46rom packagers POV it is much less welcome to provide binary package inst= ead building package (which can be reviewed and reproduced) from source code (which can be reviewed as well). S_W --Km1U/tdNT/EmXiR1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlVPFBsACgkQ37XrCapiVCNaOgCg0M8EVdTVzRXdVTyp84afx2cR OlkAoLk2oHLmfgKDkaDMMORjY+2dcCN9 =4UAa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Km1U/tdNT/EmXiR1--