From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47036) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1epbZR-0003ss-Vl for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 10:17:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1epbZO-0002dc-Oz for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 10:17:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:50947) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1epbZO-0002dQ-Kw for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 10:17:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1epbZO-0004ko-Cd for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 10:17:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#30390] [PATCH 0/3] Update cmake. Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <20180224130849.8886-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> References: <20180224130849.8886-1-arunisaac@systemreboot.net> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 16:16:19 +0100 Message-ID: <87371qa058.fsf@fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Arun Isaac , 30390@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Arun Isaac writes: > Test 92 of tar 1.30 fails on my system. I had to disable tar tests to get my > cmake to build. I am not entirely sure if the test failure has got something > to do with insufficient memory on my system. So, I'd like somebody to > reproduce the problem before patching it. That test fails on one of my build nodes with 64GB RAM as well. There is a bug report about it upstream: . However, the suggested fix does not work for me (I think it requires running autoreconf, but haven't tried that yet). > I'm a little confused now. Shouldn't I rebase the core-updates branch against > master in order to have rhash? Wouldn't this disrupt the evaluation of > core-updates on the build farm? Sorry I'm not very clear about how we handle > core-updates. We don't rebase 'live' branches. The best way is to merge master, or you could cherry-pick the patches. I can merge it later if you're not comfortable doing it :-) --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlqRgcMACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPoAnQf9Hm/Zw+6HzY/fXIFEOhm2LcY1p1TkGez7xQ2jH+2qXnBvvl7buyJUyWX1 9LEk1QUeKAifXX6kOHYLwbE+c/FBD1q24er+L8GFH0pnlmy5V7HbORCfjpk05WfC VXxLR5pXq4Nv9wJJkdSK8HZ6mQqtiVo7NbltYndLOdhySJWl8tXMBx6vbm5UoU4X lBa98aLPh+VvJzIpMqeGyqw0s3BWsDTBQTH8Jq4E4xpx+9rIrZCBIJdNwljLtHVI JUV1QgFMVLbW4aHRFhHDZrI3zDrTStaPIfnEcQutJosqgB1KOBovuwwO1h7FcZ7U E6Un7J+6yTbOSw9b+i0HIyyJuO6iwg== =YnC5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--