From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] gnu: qsynth: Fix regression caused by update to qt 5.7. Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:55:40 -0400 Message-ID: <87pop1dhhf.fsf@netris.org> References: <20160820215957.GA6502@jasmine> <20160821140825.13048-1-david@craven.ch> <20160821140825.13048-6-david@craven.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49397) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bbYrb-0001OU-UY for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:57:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bbYrY-0003lS-St for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:56:59 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:41632) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bbYrY-0003lO-Os for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Aug 2016 15:56:56 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160821140825.13048-6-david@craven.ch> (David Craven's message of "Sun, 21 Aug 2016 16:08:19 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: David Craven Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org David Craven writes: > * gnu/packages/audio.scm (qsynth)[arguments]: Require gnu++11. > --- > gnu/packages/audio.scm | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/gnu/packages/audio.scm b/gnu/packages/audio.scm > index 6c0f066..2d741d5 100644 > --- a/gnu/packages/audio.scm > +++ b/gnu/packages/audio.scm > @@ -2113,7 +2113,9 @@ interface.") > (base32 "034p6mbwrjnxd9b6h20cidxi4ilkk3cgpjp154j0jzjs1ipf7x2h")))) > (build-system gnu-build-system) > (arguments > - `(#:tests? #f)) ; no "check" phase > + `(#:tests? #f ; no "check" phase > + #:configure-flags > + '("CXXFLAGS=-std=gnu++11"))) It's not worth redoing this patch, but for future reference, the ' should be lined up under the #, although in this case it might be better to just have it on the same line. Otherwise, it looks good to me. Thanks, Mark