From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: bug#25852: Users not updating their installations of Guix Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:15:37 -0500 Message-ID: <20170308181537.GA2895@jasmine> References: <20170223211156.GA24382@jasmine> <877f429kju.fsf@gnu.org> <20170306213434.GA25316@jasmine> <20170307063330.bhv2ugsvi3qeofu5@penguin> <20170307195118.GA30247@jasmine> <20170307205848.42w2pusavz37dgwu@penguin> <20170307222215.GA4046@jasmine> <20170308062542.hfypmvgp2o6il2xf@penguin> <20170308084547.GA7436@jasmine> <20170308092419.6p7xt2psxruqd656@penguin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53991) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clg88-0002I7-U8 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:16:10 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clg85-0002Ao-0h for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:16:08 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48421) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clg82-00029x-Tn for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:16:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clg82-0001xS-CA for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Mar 2017 13:16:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170308092419.6p7xt2psxruqd656@penguin> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C4=8Cech?= Cc: 25852@debbugs.gnu.org --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:24:19AM +0100, Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 =C4=8Cech wrote: > Thank you for your explanation and your patience. I finally understand > now what you mean with binary installation and understand how it > doesn't break it. Thank you for continuing to ask for clarification. It's important that we review each others' work :) > I'll try to fix source installation somehow. Please let me know if I can help test it. --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAljASkkACgkQJkb6MLrK fwjQ9hAAqhf9Tta7u0K43fyOh0nPlOE14oD1z3PLsrHJg01wqgHx1rkdbHjV7PRJ Y6ibZI7ALDOXwzl/OTDoB8Ukq9Edw8KaV+sEBMgxu6fmyv+genbnSTjbBjshq3Gj Mq0V3TqTIIVToLcBGIn0p5OQAj45FsS+ANI1sgXXGa2pRzY+ZWltKOYc7uY3h00X XnpEmge9vGXgOF5WMAXj/ZOhw7w3rGeUICDSSTainXHrZcFjuIkJdR7+9CUiqgzC CM07hkNhyqFMU5Qg72XxVAVKGc+SjkgE7aV39UPYwbKYdQ6A9LiIzdHeREZCBe8b 8Wy0scsxlVjtgN8VYPVjsxhsBxDe2Yj5qNTpKTA8pdPhGWZ/zv6PQvQQ5KI+ddzO sZ8ZJs/ob9LOCc9fb3YfL8EW1MXjvXV2xqmpNlEpR8+APHm+NWAvsdVWSw+JEzXb EVLZ+TmgInEwwwOKDvAVjmlPFF4Tru7XkGAmmLVG+CfShNAAX1aFvJenewVsMrRu 8aV8t0s40tE543jgZA0xHYHZ6ebc8CosvvR1Vrw8VXhuZ+9As7ButMRAMFoEAjqh j0Q1XI/cViyITqaweFZMla2DDc7L6NLVjQR9Rb+nrCGYAazskuf2ugwgS4yDNzel 1lQZasOIGVX7CqUhlBEjfDWhZyOl8Xsbcvbq01URGh834fMo6eo= =TFCX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l--