[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GUB
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: GUB |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Jul 2018 15:01:43 +0200 (CEST) |
From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: GUB
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 09:30:04 +0200
> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> In May, when we were discussing the limitations of 32 bit MinGW, I
>> asked Jan for an estimate of how much work it would be to add a 64-bt
>> MinGW to GUB.
>>
>> His answer was that GUB is a hack, and that he wasn't interested in
>> putting any more effort into fixing up GUB, although he would
>> certainly provide me advice if I asked for it.
>>
>> His recommendation was to move to Guix[1], which is an existing and
>> supporting package for maintaining appropriate package versions for a
>> particular user. He said he would be willing to help with that, as
>> it's making things better, not just spending more effort on a hack.
>>
>> Are there any opinions on whether we should pursue a move to Guix?
>
> Wouldn't that mean abandoning Windows?
I don't think so. In
https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/blog/2017/creating-bundles-with-guix-pack/
you can find this example:
guix pack --target=i686-w64-mingw32 guile
Werner
- Re: GUB, (continued)
- Re: GUB, Phil Holmes, 2018/07/09
- Re: GUB, David Kastrup, 2018/07/09
- Re: GUB, Masamichi Hosoda, 2018/07/09
- Re: GUB, David Kastrup, 2018/07/09
- Re: GUB, David Kastrup, 2018/07/09
- Re: GUB, Knut Petersen, 2018/07/16
- Re: GUB, Knut Petersen, 2018/07/09
- Re: GUB, James Lowe, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB, Carl Sorensen, 2018/07/09
- Re: GUB, David Kastrup, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB,
Werner LEMBERG <=
- Re: GUB, David Kastrup, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB, Werner LEMBERG, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB, Carl Sorensen, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB, David Kastrup, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB, Karlin High, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB, Knut Petersen, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB, David Kastrup, 2018/07/10
- Re: GUB, Karlin High, 2018/07/11