GNU bug report logs - #22628
Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades

Please note: This is a static page, with minimal formatting, updated once a day.
Click here to see this page with the latest information and nicer formatting.

Package: guix; Reported by: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic Courtès); dated Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:12:01 UTC; Maintainer for guix is bug-guix@HIDDEN.

Message received at 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org:


Received: (at 22628) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2016 14:01:18 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 12 09:01:18 2016
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37355 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1aUEHd-0005mf-Qf
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:01:17 -0500
Received: from mailrelay2.public.one.com ([91.198.169.125]:43356)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84)
 (envelope-from <andreas@HIDDEN>) id 1aUEHc-0005mR-04
 for 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:01:16 -0500
X-HalOne-Cookie: f1d53a15a8b4ea89b058b955c51c2e153fcb4d59
X-HalOne-ID: 0feac026-d191-11e5-917b-b82a72d03b9b
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=enge.fr; s=20140924;
 h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type:
 content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references;
 bh=Q8UmbvR4MOBAjAn4R7X7ZUFZX6O21vQOGtzKxH60FoY=;
 b=W6QqtEfpib13ssfGxQXHFYfiU1KiJ0Qk0yxhQu+2EVuzuEhnCW26w+X93+8BJWIYdghLqZZWz5azj
 rKr82USZRrHilqgVD+Aj8uzod6h19ueFBerSUUqCs6trOZb1TLcurUy9QNi6BV3xZ0dJtEBRbtIG+f
 R71BrUoc117XEA+Y=
Received: from debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr (unknown [147.210.245.180])
 by smtpfilter2.public.one.com (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTPSA;
 Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:01:06 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:01:05 +0100
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@HIDDEN>
To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
Message-ID: <20160212140105.GA6289@HIDDEN>
References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@HIDDEN> <878u2qus7e.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87r3gi11j5.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <87r3gi11j5.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22628
Cc: Alex Kost <alezost@HIDDEN>, 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 02:49:50PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I think we need a different solution for packages that have several
> series.  For instance, we could have:
>   (define gnupg-2.0
>     (package …
>       (properties `((series . "2.0")))))
> and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
> version prefix is “2.0”.
> WDYT?

This is so obvious that one wonders how we did not think of it earlier :-)

Andreas





Information forwarded to bug-guix@HIDDEN:
bug#22628; Package guix. Full text available.

Message received at 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org:


Received: (at 22628) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2016 13:50:03 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 12 08:50:03 2016
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37346 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1aUE6l-0005VS-C4
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:50:03 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58584)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1aUE6k-0005Uu-H3
 for 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:50:02 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1aUE6c-0006OR-8v
 for 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:49:57 -0500
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59742)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1aUE6c-0006ON-6G; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:49:54 -0500
Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:50938 helo=pluto)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1aUE6b-0006ht-I3; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:49:53 -0500
From: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
To: Alex Kost <alezost@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@HIDDEN> <878u2qus7e.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/
X-Revolutionary-Date: 24 =?utf-8?Q?Pluvi=C3=B4se?= an 224 de la
 =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?=
X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x3D9AEBB5
X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4  0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5
X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:49:50 +0100
In-Reply-To: <878u2qus7e.fsf@HIDDEN> (Alex Kost's message of "Fri, 12 Feb
 2016 13:40:53 +0300")
Message-ID: <87r3gi11j5.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
X-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22628
Cc: 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -5.1 (-----)

Alex Kost <alezost@HIDDEN> skribis:

> The fact that we have 2 versions is the answer.  In Emacs UI a package
> is not considered to be obsolete if there is a package definition with
> the same name+version.
>
> That's why "texinfo 6.0" is green in the list, not red (as obsolete
> packages).

Oh, to me, ^ meant =E2=80=9Cupgrade=E2=80=9D, like =E2=80=98guix package -u=
=E2=80=99 but only taking
into account the version number (=E2=80=98guix package -u=E2=80=99 upgrades=
 if the store
file name differs, even if the version number is the same.)

> I believe marking such packages as obsolete is not correct and it may be
> confusing.  See <https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-02-09#T909651>.

I think we need a different solution for packages that have several
series.  For instance, we could have:

  (define gnupg-2.0
    (package =E2=80=A6
      (properties `((series . "2.0")))))

and that would lead the various UIs to upgrade only to a package whose
version prefix is =E2=80=9C2.0=E2=80=9D.

WDYT?

Ludo=E2=80=99.




Information forwarded to bug-guix@HIDDEN:
bug#22628; Package guix. Full text available.

Message received at 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org:


Received: (at 22628) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2016 10:41:02 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 12 05:41:01 2016
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37289 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1aUB9p-0007mk-J7
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 05:41:01 -0500
Received: from mail-lb0-f180.google.com ([209.85.217.180]:33052)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84)
 (envelope-from <alezost@HIDDEN>) id 1aUB9o-0007mS-Hh
 for 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 05:41:00 -0500
Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id x4so43299403lbm.0
 for <22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:41:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id
 :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=cJf1/S+diQx1SSYGBHuKdYGqDWKr/ZyIM5/Ih92oTTg=;
 b=ZS29kRHS7R1bzG8nk6Tuu6+2KVgV9hqGBSc6B9ROzpqcp+HysbQ8H+Vdry71mbymsz
 nFFm97c371egQZqAz4nOGcz9NNhgNfvWJcjjilhQvDZZzDpCIV7fTKKeDxb5XRYC2SVj
 sp5MMJaaCzmIsguGDAKDBG+5uwunq5FHFzlwDhOH0pCt89qaXg9CXs3PdbAFLQf3+Tuo
 3Bma6HuEDC6KrX4YhZIAGcl25oXifmBfVlyKCbTMi2/unCvxOgohWGNmJbOdOPP7oHDr
 fYIp7uHg63+aWc7VA5hEcgk1WU1wMpoMfmg9dsudJjOM1Q1BR2yIXRZgy8iExLCCNaPh
 1sfg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to
 :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-type
 :content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=cJf1/S+diQx1SSYGBHuKdYGqDWKr/ZyIM5/Ih92oTTg=;
 b=blb8f28D7PC35E56slk6jxEE9VgpLZK3YZeyxGutut8J9Lj8W3gxuil4ojnGy2qtIQ
 pwI6shyU2LMzcQtD/Q0VOkawnaKz53J+dPd8weE7U+rbs3So/fhLOscoXybUQ5r8BbH3
 CJHTAvJTIcL5N3ZiqS82ljX/rJlxdLofByMgCPzoJQd4nm+oUGXE7IXU8j4CIbeep7JW
 j/fTqnV2v8lHaxRu+r44o90e3BGamUgkv/iQSWOb3AsW4fblAhFNy1nQ6t++R/twYIZt
 DK6U6kiZnFeM3b4K88KTFDsJ29Z7wuuqtjXJFmqcGjrKcLOVS2+u1bd03P87zEdo7VHa
 Ty9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTIEn4Ala+2vxqyZLl+1Q/F16rznFogJhVfsFQ6Lp2CLZVM0HO+ZZ7miB1v6E5D/w==
X-Received: by 10.112.158.65 with SMTP id ws1mr348012lbb.86.1455273654683;
 Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:40:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from leviafan ([217.107.192.146])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id tv1sm1757708lbb.4.2016.02.12.02.40.53
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Fri, 12 Feb 2016 02:40:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Alex Kost <alezost@HIDDEN>
To: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: bug#22628: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
References: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:40:53 +0300
In-Reply-To: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@HIDDEN> ("Ludovic
 \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
 \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:11:06 +0100")
Message-ID: <878u2qus7e.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 22628
Cc: 22628 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)

Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2016-02-11 12:11 +0300) wrote:

> Hello!
>
> In current Guix master we have Texinfo 6.0 and 6.1.  With 6.0 installed
> in my profile, hitting ^ in the M-x guix-installed-packages buffer does
> not mark Texinfo as a candidate for upgrade.

The fact that we have 2 versions is the answer.  In Emacs UI a package
is not considered to be obsolete if there is a package definition with
the same name+version.

That's why "texinfo 6.0" is green in the list, not red (as obsolete
packages).

I believe marking such packages as obsolete is not correct and it may be
confusing.  See <https://gnunet.org/bot/log/guix/2016-02-09#T909651>.

For example, if a user makes a package for some old version, (s)he wants
to use it and probably doesn't want it to be updated by accident
(because it is obsolete).

--=20
Alex




Information forwarded to bug-guix@HIDDEN:
bug#22628; Package guix. Full text available.

Message received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org:


Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2016 09:11:28 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Thu Feb 11 04:11:28 2016
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35655 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1aTnHc-00077o-DU
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:28 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:40516)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1aTnHb-00077c-5i
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:27 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1aTnHS-000567-Kz
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:21 -0500
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:58821)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1aTnHS-000563-I5
 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:18 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59661)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1aTnHO-0007ki-Lb
 for bug-guix@HIDDEN; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:18 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1aTnHN-00053p-KB
 for bug-guix@HIDDEN; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:14 -0500
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51704)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1aTnHJ-000531-PU; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:09 -0500
Received: from pluto.bordeaux.inria.fr ([193.50.110.57]:57496 helo=pluto)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1aTnHI-00036N-WA; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 04:11:09 -0500
From: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
To: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Subject: Emacs: ^ in installed package list misses some upgrades
X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/
X-Revolutionary-Date: 23 =?utf-8?Q?Pluvi=C3=B4se?= an 224 de la
 =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?=
X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x3D9AEBB5
X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4  0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5
X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:11:06 +0100
Message-ID: <87r3gjvcgl.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11
X-Spam-Score: -5.3 (-----)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
Cc: Alex Kost <alezost@HIDDEN>
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -5.3 (-----)

Hello!

In current Guix master we have Texinfo 6.0 and 6.1.  With 6.0 installed
in my profile, hitting ^ in the M-x guix-installed-packages buffer does
not mark Texinfo as a candidate for upgrade.

Ludo=E2=80=99.




Acknowledgement sent to ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic Courtès):
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN. Full text available.
Report forwarded to bug-guix@HIDDEN:
bug#22628; Package guix. Full text available.
Please note: This is a static page, with minimal formatting, updated once a day.
Click here to see this page with the latest information and nicer formatting.
Last modified: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:15:02 UTC

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.