On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 10:12:55AM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > 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 pushed it a few days ago. I also added the guix-gc.timer file yesterday and then bumped the guix package. > > 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. This magically fixed itself. I'm not asking any questions. > I have those tests patched to skip unless network is available, but in > the Debian build environment things are pretty different... I didn't look too closely at the test but I think it creates its own HTTP server and serves itself a file. > > live well, > vagrant -- 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
