GNU bug report logs -
#66148
Fix Guix version number in pulled (=most) manuals
Previous Next
Full log
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi all,
To avoid expensive rebuilds, (guix self) explicitly substitutes
the less than satisfying "0.0-git" as version number for the
Texinfo manual.
In some cases, that's merely ugly and confusing:
> This document describes GNU Guix version 0.0-git, a functional
> package management tool written for the GNU system.
or
> If you’re running Debian or a derivative such as Ubuntu, you can
> instead install the package (it might be a version older than
> 0.0-git but you can update it afterwards by running ‘guix
> pull’):
But in most cases it's worse:
> 1. Download the binary tarball from
> ‘https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-binary-0.0-git.x86_64-linux.tar.xz’,
eek
> $ wget
> https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-binary-0.0-git.x86_64-linux.tar.xz.sig
> $ gpg --verify guix-binary-0.0-git.x86_64-linux.tar.xz.sig
boo
> An ISO-9660 installation image that can be written to a USB
> stick
> or burnt to a DVD can be downloaded from
> ‘https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guix/guix-system-install-0.0-git.x86_64-linux.iso’
nein
> make sure you checked the GPG signature of ‘guix-0.0-git.tar.gz’
Imagine coming to this with a fresh mind & without our knowledge
that this is ‘obviously wrong’. After all: this is the official
upstream updater, not some random git snapshot!
(Only later will you find out the truth that it is both, but
you'll no longer care.)
Anyway. So hesitant am I to even READ future (gnu packages
package-management) versions from older Guixen that I've committed
the crime of regex, twice. Punish me by sharing your thoughts.
Kind regards,
T G-R
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 242 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.