[bug#60931] [PATCH] gnu: pari-gp: Update to 2.15.2.

[bug#60931] [PATCH] gnu: pari-gp: Update to 2.15.2.

[Andreas Enge]

* gnu/packages/algebra.scm (pari-gp): Update to 2.15.2.
---
 gnu/packages/algebra.scm | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/algebra.scm b/gnu/packages/algebra.scm
index 3ceef8ecd2..e266647c73 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/algebra.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/algebra.scm
@@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ (define-public python-fpylll
 (define-public pari-gp
   (package
     (name "pari-gp")
-    (version "2.15.1")
+    (version "2.15.2")
     (source (origin
               (method url-fetch)
               (uri (string-append
@@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ (define-public pari-gp
                     version ".tar.gz"))
               (sha256
                (base32
-                "0gcyj0p0z5s1i9y67z5awwmmdvqrisvyrq22gvkbx1b6gjvrsha5"))))
+                "1pg0przhb3cgyn0rwkx2mx7a7fpy6bxxl72bk98pca723q8jhimh"))))
     (build-system gnu-build-system)
     (native-inputs (list (texlive-updmap.cfg
                           (list texlive-amsfonts))))

base-commit: e4db832a0ec8e3d9d4f01843e4bb7d92c458199e
-- 
2.38.1

[bug#60931] [PATCH] gnu: pari-gp: Update to 2.15.2.

[Simon Tournier]

Hi Andreas,

On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 at 12:44, Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> wrote:
> * gnu/packages/algebra.scm (pari-gp): Update to 2.15.2.
> ---
>  gnu/packages/algebra.scm | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Following this discussion [1] about commit policy, you can see the
result of the QA for this update here:

    https://qa.guix.gnu.org/issue/60931

where the patch has been built on several architectures and the
dependants too.

Well, there is two failures [2] for i686-linux.  But it is not
introduced by this patch, somehow it is related to Bordeaux.  For
example, ’giac’ fails:

https://data.guix.gnu.org/repository/1/branch/master/package/giac/output-history?output=out&system=i686-linux&target=none

but passes on Berlin:

https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/303080/details

What is intriguing is the difference of derivation hashes between the 2
build farms.

Chris, an idea?

Aside, it appears to me that enough green are around for pushing. :-)


Cheers,
simon


2: https://data.qa.guix.gnu.org/compare/package-derivations?base_commit=238f965c331990459a69cbc713ca951ad40e6044&target_commit=07ea16b0399444855b90d566e7a1c7c038142b4a&system=i686-linux&target=none

bug#60931: Close

[Andreas Enge]

Pushed.