Hi Andreas,
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 14:16, Andreas Enge wrote:
> Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:39:29PM +0100 schrieb zimoun:
>> Is the package ’valgrind/interactive’ accessible with valgrind@3.17
>> needed? Indeed, maybe it could be dropped, especially if it is broken
>> for
Hi!
The two ‘/interactive’ versions can probably be merged; I don’t think
there was a good reason to keep 3.17.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:39:29PM +0100 schrieb zimoun:
> Is the package ’valgrind/interactive’ accessible with valgrind@3.17
> needed? Indeed, maybe it could be dropped, especially if it is broken
> for some use-case.
I do not know whether it is broken; the question is rather whet
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 12:01, Andreas Enge wrote:
> (define-public valgrind
> (package
> (name "valgrind")
> (version "3.17.0")
> (properties '((hidden? . #t)
>
> (define-public valgrind/interactive
> (package/inherit
Hello,
I am a bit confused about the valgrind situation. Currently there are three
packages:
(define-public valgrind
(package
(name "valgrind")
(version "3.17.0")
(properties '((hidden? . #t)
(define-public valgrind/interactive
(package/inherit
val
15 at 06:02:01PM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
+ gnu/packages/patches/valgrind-glibc_version.patch\
We usually use '-' instead of '_', so I would call it
valgrind-glibc-version.patch .
Argh. OK.
Or maybe valgrind-glibc-2.21.patch .
Original file name was
http:/
I had a look yesterday and wanted to make a patch this evening, but you
beat me to it! This looks a lot like what I wanted to do, so please push.
A tiny bit of nitpicking:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 06:02:01PM +0100, Tomáš Čech wrote:
> + gnu/packages/patches/valgrind-glibc_version.pa
* gnu/packages/patches/valgrind-glibc_version.patch: New file.
* gnu-system.am (dist_patch_DATA): Add the patch.
* gnu/packages/valgrind.scm (valgrind): Apply the patch.
---
gnu-system.am | 1 +
gnu/packages/patches/valgrind-glibc_version.patch | 26
