Great job! Patches pushed (with one change)

On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 02:44:43PM +0100, zimoun wrote:
> Hi Efraim,
> 
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 at 14:47, Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> wrote:
> 
> > It turns out we didn't expose julia-package-dependencies in the
> > julia-build-system, making the created Package.toml incomplete. This
> > corrects the omission and fixes the one package where it is manually
> > added.
> 
> All LGTM.  But I take this opportunity to uniform, as discussed:
> 
>         It's definitely the new pattern we're using now. I suppose it's
>         not really necessary here, but having more instances of it
>         throughout the codebase also makes it easier to search for
>         examples when others are looking to use or modify gexps.
> 
>         <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/53656#4-lineno49>
> 
> The first patch of the series uses G-exps.  Note that it does not imply
> any rebuild.
> 
> The Julia build system is adapted for the new
> 'julia-package-dependencies' and so it requires the minor tweak to
> default with ''() instead of #f; otherwise it crashes for some packages.
> 
> Since we are at it, I fix a minor typo of how Julia uses --procs.  Other
> said, currently "guix build julia-media -c 0" works but not "guix build
> julia-media -c 1" which crashes.
> 
> Because the build system modifications imply a full Julia rebuild, let
> take the opportunity to remove the trailing #t.  It is done package per
> package because each modified package need a rebuild so it eases to
> follow, IMHO.  They can be squashed otherwise.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> simon

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted