From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Aug 31 09:02:19 2018 Received: (at 32022) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Aug 2018 13:02:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39891 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fvj47-0002gZ-36 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:02:19 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55613) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fvj46-0002gM-BA for 32022@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:02:18 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvj3u-0002Fi-9m for 32022@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:02:11 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57754) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fvj3h-0002Da-Us; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:01:53 -0400 Received: from [193.50.110.186] (port=49170 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1fvj3h-0000CE-LZ; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 09:01:53 -0400 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Konrad Hinsen Subject: Re: bug#22629: =?utf-8?B?4oCcU3RhYmxl4oCd?= branch References: <87vb5vsffd.fsf@gnu.org> <87pny2iks2.fsf@gnu.org> <877ekagtg9.fsf@netris.org> <87zhx5msfl.fsf@pompo.co> <87lg8pccys.fsf_-_@netris.org> <87zhx59gh3.fsf@elephly.net> <875zzs9wzl.fsf@netris.org> <874lfcxd2v.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87wos8lzcj.fsf@pompo.co> <878t4nqzqv.fsf@gnu.org> <874lfarh6w.fsf@gnu.org> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 14 Fructidor an 226 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 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-pc-linux-gnu Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 15:01:52 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Konrad Hinsen's message of "Fri, 31 Aug 2018 12:33:19 +0200") Message-ID: <87k1o6pu4f.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (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: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 32022 Cc: 26608@debbugs.gnu.org, 22629@debbugs.gnu.org, Alex Sassmannshausen , 32022@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.0 (------) Hello, Konrad Hinsen skribis: >> What do you mean by =E2=80=9Climit it to channels=E2=80=9D? =E2=80=98%d= efault-channels=E2=80=99 is an >> alias for the official Guix channel (IOW, Guix itself.) > > Fine, but I rarely care about all of Guix, or all of any other channel. > I care about the small subset of packages that I actually use. > > Better yet, with a per-manifest/profile approach, I could put my most > critical packages in a special profile and get updates for them more > quickly, while still working only with substitutes. Sure! The hypothetical procedure I gave can perform arbitrary checks; it could be passed a manifest. > BTW, just out of curiosity: for how many commits in Guix history all > packages could be built successfully? Is that the rule of the exception? We never have 100% of successful builds. Of course we do our best to keep the failure rate low, but sometimes there are unpopular packages that remain broken for some time, or there are packages for which we forgot to exclude some systems via =E2=80=98supported-systems=E2=80=99, and= of course there=E2=80=99s unintended breakage. Ludo=E2=80=99.