From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Aug 26 07:20:08 2019 Received: (at 36931) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Aug 2019 11:20:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45693 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i2D2d-0002Tp-SU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 07:20:08 -0400 Received: from m4s11.vlinux.de ([83.151.27.109]:53242 helo=bjoernhoefling.de) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i2D2c-0002Td-5z for 36931@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 07:20:06 -0400 Received: from alma-ubu (p5DFE9C22.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.254.156.34]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bjoernhoefling.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C21623F870; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:20:04 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 13:20:09 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEjDtmZsaW5n?= To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?B?Q291cnTDqHM=?= Subject: Re: bug#36931: guile-bash repository no longer exists? Message-ID: <20190826132009.09cef7e4@alma-ubu> In-Reply-To: <87d0gv4zbt.fsf@gnu.org> References: <05b9dc182cdcbe72ddea77191681258380a672a4.camel@gmail.com> <87ftmfznhs.fsf@elephly.net> <20190805223907.5ead2297@alma-ubu> <87d0gv4zbt.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/t4ENrkTi+Owjxj_j+lP+KQY"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 36931 Cc: Ricardo Wurmus , 36931@debbugs.gnu.org, Jesse Gibbons 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: -1.0 (-) --Sig_/t4ENrkTi+Owjxj_j+lP+KQY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 18:32:38 +0200 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Ouch. I=E2=80=99ve improved error reporting handling here, but I think t= he > fundamental issue is that SWH is failing to deliver this thing, even > though it does have it: Thanks for looking into this. Let's see what SWH has to say. After all, I think we should leave this pack in Guix. At least it is a good SWH-test-package :-) Bj=C3=B6rn --Sig_/t4ENrkTi+Owjxj_j+lP+KQY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQQiGUP0np8nb5SZM4K/KGy2WT5f/QUCXWPAaQAKCRC/KGy2WT5f /WzAAJ9lkjEo0FWccpwlIoGNz/4lO74dzwCcD1Dx6vqdq1MHdthE6yxrNrBXnno= =Thal -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/t4ENrkTi+Owjxj_j+lP+KQY--