From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: bug#32360: gst-plugins-base has test failures (when built as a dependency) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:16:42 -0400 Message-ID: <20180817171642.GA4821@jasmine.lan> References: <20180803133858.0d6f5ac3@alma-ubu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+QahgC5+KEYLbs62" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33859) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fqiN5-00038N-As for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:17:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fqiMz-0003sC-6H for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:17:10 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48705) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fqiMy-0003s1-Ez for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:17:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fqiMy-0000Kx-7L for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Aug 2018 13:17:04 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180803133858.0d6f5ac3@alma-ubu> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_?= =?UTF-8?Q?H=C3=B6fling?= Cc: 32360@debbugs.gnu.org --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Bj=F6rn H=F6fling wrote: > What I find strange is that the derivation of gst-plugins-base differs > from the one above when directly building gst-plugins-base. That would > make sense to me if there would be two packages of gst-plugins-base, > like an inherited one or just any kind of copy. But here, the package > definition of wine ist just using the "normal" package. Or have I > overlooked something? Have I misunderstood something about derivations > here?! Presumably, you are using an x86_64 computer, and the successful build of gst-plugins-base is for an x86_64-linux system. However, the wine package and its dependency graph is always built as 32-bit software, regardless of the underlying architecture: =46rom gnu/packages/wine.scm: ------ (arguments `(;; Force a 32-bit build targeting a similar architecture, i.e.: ;; armhf for armhf/aarch64, i686 for i686/x86_64. #:system ,@(match (%current-system) ((or "armhf-linux" "aarch64-linux") `("armhf-linux")) (_ =20 `("i686-linux"))) ------ And the test failure in the 32-bit build of gst-plugins base was previously discussed on help-guix (no bug report): https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2018-06/msg00075.html --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlt3AvcACgkQJkb6MLrK fwhaTw//X/dTxOVBjHe9wp6IqPWu63kixJJuIQIzeY38Hf3+GEH0t9oh0qBBIAcA GyvtNREeh+mbyCrbV9ntsPkvLQNbe/TgsuTKizTKhvVRZNUFpOgLloq0sRZqDlYo Yuztn9qKSWmZL0DKJBrdbYmX5FroKfFPyOWRVRYKxDjWjYNzyIN7ySNYjXxxdcE/ kMH42gIJAbXG8sI6BFb5Gd2PRZ8q8mTJNqi7dO54cCvoZbraNVwWSujsoemiA6pu 3f1eUFTatyLUoyue9qhafXHUI21YG0GsouHaUnC9XWcVp2zgiAayw6zUSrB8yxcp yxtICHkyvOcYExZ5wGesCmvb7DvrwS6d3qqCf7gdWSPbBRo4kebilSTc/qyk8zT4 SLGPk2W9ChZBbIDHBuP1UUviV9OkxgDC4ZToWF7F1bjmAUuUKXeXABDkYaFj+o40 5dGI3V6ZcODSV9yH/67AIYExIrbEstWQl9NJNraIDlAjayjcEGt+k5zv3vBSaEKY 6F1uWqO74CsPXp7hmUdTncPdRjGr+54ZDosyX0Gk1Y+dMbYBfqHMRhAXuVOv0rAp RA+0L+sfGtRe7t7vdPXnCIndsrQs/iiuy6Dp8CFGt8cqVq+j6ZJTXLSyexitm3Gx n8SkUjPWb9w0Sx0y7qnc+T9VZR8C/IeIbb9dw2ryUI0fF3wdbOY= =x+We -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62--