<rekado_>It just occurred to me that in order to give our users freedom to manage their own profiles I just need to give them restricted SSH access to the one server that has guix and guix-daemon installed.
<rekado_>no need for RPC over TCP or local deployment of guix on the hundreds of workstations.
<grantix>It'd building GCC for somereason, currently.
<taylanub>grantix: if you haven't built anything else recently, or did a 'guix gc', then it's normal it'd be bootstrapping the compiler first
<taylanub>grantix: you can run guix-daemon with --gc-keep-outputs --gc-keep-derivatives to prevent it from GCing some things like that so they won't be rebuilt every time
<rekado_>shouldn't it download the compiler instead of building it?
<grantix>taylanub: This is a new install, but I swore I installed GCC. I don't know, maybe I'm thinking of my other box. Eveything but my HTPC is running GSD, to motivate me to package more ... so I'm guessing I'm just mixing them up.
<rekado_>or are these packages not yet available as binaries since the latest updates to master?
<rekado_>I find that even with using substitutes I have to build lots of stuff myself.
<taylanub>if you have them, --no-substitutes won't make a difference
<grantix>Too late to back out to be worth it, plus since I'm going afk soon for a few hours ... it shouldn't matter.
<grantix>taylanub: Yeah, I'm saying since I must not of had them.
<rekado_>for example, on my workstation it's compiling gtk+ right now.
<taylanub>I mean, it generally won't make the kind of difference you seem to think it does. it's a purely transparent binary-substitution thing; instead of building something itself it fetches a binary that's the same as the output you'd get from the build anyway; same hash
<taylanub>grantix: oh, ok. OOC, why --no-substitutes then?
<taylanub>mark_weaver: hi, Andreas Enge recommended I rename gambit-c back to gambc in conformance with the tarball name (which is apparently in the guidelines). just wanted to get your agreement before I push it.
<bavier`>taylanub: I personally don't think that convention holds much water
<bavier`>I think you'd be able to find at least a handful of other packages where the project chose some silly name for the tarball
<mark_weaver>phant0mas: ideally, this should be fixed by having a base 'glibc' package that is inherited by a glibc/linux recipe, so that we don't have to remove those linux-specific things from the base. but in the meantime, I know how to fix it. give me a minute..