Re: [bug#31076] gnurl 7.59.0

[Nils Gillmann]

Nils Gillmann transcribed 1.3K bytes:
> Ludovic Courtès transcribed 474 bytes:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Nils Gillmann <address@hidden> skribis:
> > 
> > > Seems like ftp.gnu.org is currently either very slow or having troubles
> > > with the actual software distribution. The signatures landed on there,
> > > the rest has yet to materialize.
> > 
> > I think you made a mistake:
> > 
> >    gnurl-7.59.0.tar.gz.sig
> >    gnurl-7.59.0.tar.gz.sig.sig
> > 
> > You’ll have to reupload without the extra .sig.  :-)
> 
> There were (are?) some issues on FTP side, they applied my new key
> before realizing my new is too recent for their gpg. I'm currently
> waiting on the result of the thread about this.
> Furthermore it seems like the system can not cope very well with
> anything that is not gpg and uses .sig ;) My signify signatures are
> .sig, my gpg signatures are .asc ..
> Anyway, we have to resolve some issues and archive some files in our
> directory.
> 
> Thanks :)
> 
> > I’ve applied the patch since there’s a fallback URL anyway.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Ludo’.
> 
> I'm looking into switching gnurl to bmake + mk-config. I've already got the
> tools on my side.
> Do you want me to continue the native autotools support for Guix in gnurl,
> derived from curl? Or would it be okay to switch guix over to bmake +
> mk-config if it works out for gnurl?
> 
> I'm asking because I could manage to support 2 build-system, it just would
> be a bit unconvenient for me.

Correction: I noticed this will make building gnurl unpleasant on guix side.
I would have to introduce the bmake + mk + the bootstrapping of bmake without
make in the build system I'm currently working on.. in Guix, which is something
I'm pretty sure will not be taken into master.

Alternative: a simple bmake using the gnu-build-system (and therefore depending
on make deeper down the graph) would be accepted I guess?