Recent activity

Re: Issues with Native Comp; feature-emacs is not used as a builder a month ago

From Samuel Culpepper to ~abcdw/rde-discuss

Samuel Culpepper <samuel@samuelculpepper.com> writes:
> Will clean up my configs, and share the source in this thread later.
> Thanks for all the help!

Find the procedure here -- the local master of each submodule/channel is
used by the pinned inferior build profiles:

- update channel ::
- update inferiors ::
- reconf local, basically nicked from Andrew ::

Re: Issues with Native Comp; feature-emacs is not used as a builder a month ago

From Samuel Culpepper to ~abcdw/rde-discuss

> take a look at the various 1.7. People's rde configurations [...]
> The one tricky point is to properly configure your load-paths, [...]
> [...] all do indicate where the repositories (guix, rde...) actually are
Great advice.  I have read through the example configs, and landed back
using a pre-inst-env.

The most simple update is now an update is a matter of:
    git submodule update --recursive --remote \
      && guix pull -C channels/local.scm

where channels/local.scm is:

Re: Issues with Native Comp; feature-emacs is not used as a builder a month ago

From Samuel Culpepper to ~abcdw/rde-discuss

👋 Hey Andrew, Nicolas,

Thank you both for responding with such detail and speed.

After separating my config from my fork of RDE, I am clueless as to how
I can locally build (and I still have not learned how to debug guile properly),
which precludes my further contributions.

Might you direct me here?  Sorry to be a help-vampire, but will need some momentum!
- i.e. "use guix channels pointing to a local repo,
        and do X to ensure .guix-authorizations is valid"
- i.e. "make a pre-inst-env from a local repo"

Issues with Native Comp; feature-emacs is not used as a builder a month ago

From Samuel Culpepper to ~abcdw/rde-discuss


Having some trouble with native compilation; simply put, it seems that
the home-service does not respect the emacs package specified in the
user-configuration, and does not propagate package-rewites under any circumstances.

- Running on :: HEAD=3344ce422f1c3d6f3e43815bbca76992a0aa8e0a,
- feature-emacs :: supplied with arg =#:emacs (@ (rde packages emacs) emacs-next-pgtk-latest)=
- unabridged configuration :: https://pastebin.com/EhbsNa2X

I can hardly grok the code in =src/rde/home/services/emacs.scm=, but
various parts of emacs have been broken (relating to incorrect bytecode)

[PATCH] rde: emacs: org-agenda: Extract feature-org-agenda-appt 10 months ago

From Samuel Culpepper to ~abcdw/rde-devel


This patch removes 'rde-appt-mode from 'feature-org-agenda.  I'd love to
use this feature, but it does not meet my quality standards today.

As for how we extract it -- would you prefer an "extract" commit, and an
"add appt-mode" commit?  I've tested this HEAD with non-appt and appt,
and it works as expected for both cases.

I hope the discussion of quality can be treated separately from the base
separation, but I include my thoughts here, below, for brevity.

Otherwise, thanks for the great progress.  I live and work in RDE for
[message trimmed]

[PATCH] rde: wm: waybar: Add volume module 1 year, 8 months ago

From Samuel Culpepper to ~abcdw/rde-devel

Add pulse module config:

- shows distinct icon for sink (output) mute / source (input) mute
- no progressive icons available (serializer limit)

 rde/features/wm.scm | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+)

diff --git a/rde/features/wm.scm b/rde/features/wm.scm
index 6b792db..d8f1f43 100644
[message trimmed]

Re: [PATCH] rde: emacs: olivetti: Clarify excluding of buffers/modes 2 years ago

From Samuel Culpepper to ~abcdw/rde-devel

On 2022-03-02 18:05, Andrew Tropin wrote:
> Very nice improvement, thank you.  Reworded, applied, pushed.

thanks for the kind words! happy to help as always

Best regards,
Samuel Culpepper

Re: Testing inline patch display on sourcehut web view 2 years ago

From Samuel Culpepper to ~abcdw/rde-devel

> I can reconsider plain-text patch emails when I'll automate the
> process of creating replies with multiple patches.  Also, sending each
> patch in a separate email allows for better threading and thus easier
> code review, which is good.
yeah I suppose the main difficulty is not having a codified workflow, so
it will be great to dig into it -- interesting with send-email from
Xinglu, it's on my TODOs

Best regards,
Samuel Culpepper