Re: 01/03: gnu: guix: Update development snapshot.

Re: 01/03: gnu: guix: Update development snapshot.

[Alex Kost]

> commit 95af24a2f1fb58eb9e6ee902c9330534f0aca9f3
> Author: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
> Date:   Sun Jul 24 14:58:19 2016 +0200
>
>     gnu: guix: Update development snapshot.
>     
>     * gnu/packages/package-management.scm (guix-devel): Update to 97c8aef.
> ---
>  gnu/packages/package-management.scm |    4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/package-management.scm b/gnu/packages/package-management.scm
> index cd58fde..878fed2 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/package-management.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/package-management.scm
> @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ the Nix package manager.")
>    ;;
>    ;; Note: use a very short commit id; with a longer one, the limit on
>    ;; hash-bang lines would be exceeded while running the tests.
> -  (let ((commit "e9017c98d61f305b624bacaa30e8891ec0100980"))
> +  (let ((commit "97c8aef15de89799ac01b62dd9b91245c23eefcb"))
>      (package (inherit guix-0.10.0)
>        (version (string-append "0.10.0-0." (string-take commit 4)))

As Efraim noticed on #guix, the revision number wasn't updated.  I think
you forgot to do it, right?

So now this version “0.10.0-0.97c8” looks "older" than “0.10.0-0.e901”.
I don't know, should it be left as it is, or is it better to update the
revision?

>        (source (origin
> @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ the Nix package manager.")
>                        (commit commit)))
>                  (sha256
>                   (base32
> -                  "13mfk10cw6fk4diclzld56xwabshanxjcczdrjlj0wisaz32h3nl"))
> +                  "0sdxq87mbvig7785gzf52ywmvl3p1q1qgsczmkzrlw988xkma1dr"))
>                  (file-name (string-append "guix-" version "-checkout"))))
>        (arguments
>         (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments guix-0.10.0)
>
>

-- 
Alex

Re: 01/03: gnu: guix: Update development snapshot.

[Andreas Enge]

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 11:35:42AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote:
> As Efraim noticed on #guix, the revision number wasn't updated.  I think
> you forgot to do it, right?

Indeed, my mistake, apologies! I just pushed with a corrected version
number. Thanks for the report!

Andreas