Hi George,
George myglc2 Clemmer skribis:
> g1@g1 ~/src/guix$ guix package -M 4 -c 4 -m ../g1.scm
> [...]
> *** t9153-git-svn-rewrite-uuid.sh ***
> not ok 4 - create new branches and tags
> #
> # ( cd git_project &&
> # git svn branch -m "New branch 1" -d b_one Ne
Hi,
Just a note that this was fix a couple of weeks ago in commit
aa6ae8d3243ce80d6c427e243c4fa961c3bf8388.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Hello,
Maxim Cournoyer skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> We can also fix this once and for all with this patch:
>>
>> diff --git a/gnu/services/xorg.scm b/gnu/services/xorg.scm
>> index 0da3397da..8f285b29a 100644
>> --- a/gnu/services/xorg.scm
>> +++ b/gnu/service
Hello Guix,
`guix build maxima' fails during the `check' phase with the following
output:
starting phase `check'
Making check in admin
make[1]: Entering directory
'/tmp/guix-build-maxima-5.41.0.drv-0/maxima-5.41.0/admin'
make[1]: Nothing to be done for 'check'.
make[1]: Leaving directory
'/tmp/
On 12/01/2017 at 11:33 Ludovic Courtès writes:
...
>
> To me that sounds like an issue when running tests in parallel. Commit
> c03ba83c17c91e34e811a909fae0f63aab701ff9 ensures test run sequentially,
> which hopefully solves the problem.
That fixed it here. Thanks. - George
I'm experimenting developing directly to the Git checkout instead of
using GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH to develop and test package definitions.
Currently this is what I do:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
# If the local clone is somewhat dirty, clear it.
git reset --hard H
I haven't had time to dig in to this further, but in case anyone wants
to fix rustc-1.16.0, it's broken after the upgrade of jemalloc to 5.0.1.
Reverting commit 475b99fa5cf402430aa93a40e406e854ad2ff6e4 which reverts
jemalloc back to 4.5.0 causes rustc to build successfully again. It has
been brok
Leo Famulari skribis:
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 02:55:52PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> > I thought about it, but since it’s an unsual case, what about adding a
>> > special property to packages instead? You’d write:
>> >
>> > (package
>> > ;; …
>> > (properties '((fixed-vulnerab
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:53:01AM +0100, Diego Nicola Barbato wrote:
> `guix build maxima' fails during the `check' phase with the following
> output:
Thanks for your report!
> Testsuite summary for maxima 5.41.0
>
> #
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:50:01PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Maybe ‘lint-hidden-vulnerabilities’ or ‘hidden-vulnerabilities’, or
> ‘ignored-vulnerabilities’, or…? What’s you preference? :-)
I like 'lint-hidden-vulnerabilities' because it communicates that we are
"hiding" a vulnerability so
Leo Famulari writes:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 11:53:01AM +0100, Diego Nicola Barbato wrote:
>> `guix build maxima' fails during the `check' phase with the following
>> output:
>
> Thanks for your report!
>
>> Testsuite summary for maxima 5.41.0
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ludovic Courtès [mailto:l...@gnu.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:04 AM
> To: Eric Bavier
> Cc: 29...@debbugs.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: bug#29492: tests/guix-system.sh failure on unbound variable
> check
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Eric Bavier skribis:
>
> > Lat
12 matches
Mail list logo
