On 2025-02-24, Efraim Flashner wrote: > 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: ... >> 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?
Not sure. I guess having such a mechanism would be helpful to document what should not be shipped, if in fact that is the case... >> 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 So, should one of us be so bold and... just remove them? :) I was leaning in that direction already, but figured I should check before pushing, but you have come to the same conclusions! >> 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. Added gnome team members in CC, to help figure out the case of the disappearing gegl patch! It is non-obvious from git commit history where it disappeared. It was introduced in 4beac7d95c84ea3be809030f942b8b71d155129e where gegl 0.4.46 was updated from 0.4.42, but the next commit d6d9e65175d7e889c0d5020c949a65a396d1ca3d jumps from 0.4.42 to 0.4.48 ... But yeah, I am inclined to remove the patch... >> 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. Mind sharing, or even better, just pushing it? :) > 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. I have those tests patched to skip unless network is available, but in the Debian build environment things are pretty different... live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
