From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Federico Beffa Subject: Re: failing packages Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 13:14:22 +0200 Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49083) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnPRU-0003nQ-DE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 07:14:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnPRP-0004AE-71 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 07:14:24 -0400 Received: from mail-vk0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22a]:34919) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZnPRP-0004AA-1q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 07:14:23 -0400 Received: by vkha6 with SMTP id a6so81821284vkh.2 for ; Sat, 17 Oct 2015 04:14:22 -0700 (PDT) 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andreas Enge Cc: Guix-devel Andreas Enge writes: > On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 12:48:12PM +0300, Efraim Flashner wrote: >> chicken: >> guix refresh -l chicken: no dependant packages. >> Has not built successfully since early May. >> x86_64: http://hydra.gnu.org/build/701776/nixlog/1 (~1900 lines) runtime tests >> timed out >> armhf: http://hydra.gnu.org/build/701673/nixlog/1 (~4300 lines) tests pass >> (including runtime tests) until ports test >> Error: (line 294) invalid escape-sequence '\x o' => Embedded NUL bytes in >> filenames are rejected. >> mips64el: http://hydra.gnu.org/build/699177/nixlog/1 same as arm >> i686: http://hydra.gnu.org/build/698575/nixlog/1 same as x86_64 > > Should we simply drop this? Or would someone like to try an update to the > most recent version 4.10.0? > >> fastcap: >> fails on all hardware targets. >> has not built successfully since August 1st. > > Does the software really date from 1992 as the filename suggests?! > Here only the documentation does not build; maybe the fix-doc phase should > be modified? Is anybody interested in the package, or should we drop it? Yes, the software dates 1992 and works great. Electromagnetism has not changed since then. Why would you want to drop it? The documentation was broken by the last texlive update, it didn't break by itself. It's just a matter to fix some LaTeX macro. Dropping the documentation is a bad idea, because without it, you will not know how to use this complex piece of software. I will look into fixing the documentation of this package. Regards, Fede