* Re: 01/03: gnu: guix: Update development snapshot.
[not found] ` <20160725223905.5218A2200F1@vcs.savannah.gnu.org>
@ 2016-07-27 8:35 ` Alex Kost
2016-07-27 13:22 ` Andreas Enge
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Alex Kost @ 2016-07-27 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Enge; +Cc: guix-devel
> 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread