From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add biber
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:06:58 -0400
Message-ID: <20160317220658.GA7939@jasmine>
References: <87h9g84ss0.fsf@chartreuse.clemnt.net>
 <87vb4kojkj.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37295)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1agg4N-0002SY-7c
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:07:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1agg4J-0004ts-6l
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:07:03 -0400
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:53478)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1agg4J-0004ti-3O
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 17 Mar 2016 18:06:59 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87vb4kojkj.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Cl=E9ment_Barth=E9lemy?= <cbarthelemy@fdn.fr>

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:55:56PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> Clément Barthélemy <cbarthelemy@fdn.fr> skribis:
> 
> > 1. The build process spits out permission errors for several
> > packages during the strip phase. It doesn't result in a failure,
> > so I am not sure what to do.
> 
> I believe it’s harmless.  Usually it’s the ‘strip’ command complaining
> about files that lack the executable bit.
> 
> I see you already have a detailed review from Leo to work on.  :-)

Yes, but it's always good when there are multiple reviewers, especially
when they know more than me :)

> 
> Thanks for the packages, and welcome!
> 
> Ludo’.
>