On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 01:21:02PM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > On 2025-02-23, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> skribis: > > > >> The generated tarball also appears to be missing a few files, some of > >> which seem fine (e.g. .gitignore) but some which actually cause problems > >> (e.g. missing po4a.cfg, tests/*.scm, gnu/patches/*.patch), some of which > >> probably should be added to dist_patch_DATA in gnu/local.mk or other > >> relevent values: > > > > Do you plan to submit a patch for this? > > > > Thanks for working on this! > > I pushed some fixes to guix git; there are still open questions: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2025-02/msg00395.html > > Here are all my outstanding questions: > > build-aux/cuirass > build-aux/gitlog-to-changelog > etc/copyright.el > etc/git > etc/snippets > etc/teams > etc/teams.scm > > Should these be in the tarball at all? If so, where do we add them?
Thinking out loud, the point of the tarball from 'make dist' is to be able to build and install the package. So I'm leaning no. Do they need to be added to some NODIST variable? > gnu/packages/patches/cyrus-sasl-ac-try-run-fix.patch git log --grep says this should be removed > gnu/packages/patches/gcc-10-tree-sra-union-handling.patch git log --grep says this should be removed > gnu/packages/patches/gegl-compatibility-old-librsvg.patch I think this patch was lost during a gnome-team merge. We should probably ask the gnome-team. I believe it isn't needed, there is a substitute for gegl for i686-linux. > Probably should just be deleted, not referenced in the code > anywhere... or am I missing something? > > gnu/tests/lightdm.scm > gnu/tests/sddm.scm > po/doc/po4a.cfg > tests/hexpm.scm > tests/ipfs.scm > > Where to add? I have a patch to add these in. I've been testing it with running 'make dist' and then using that tarball to build guix. > live well, > vagrant Thanks for working on this! I'm getting a test failure on "'download' built-in builder" from tests/derivations.scm, with an incorrect hash. I'm not sure how it could hash it twice and get different results, but here we are. Also, the incorrect hash throws an error, which kills the test suite, so I don't know if there are any failures after that. -- Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
