From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43424) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iQU1H-0001TL-RP for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 06:19:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iQU1G-0003Qy-RN for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 06:19:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46244) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iQU1G-0003N3-BP for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 06:19:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iQU1G-00023m-4f for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 06:19:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#37825] [PATCH] gnu: bitcoin-abc: Update to 0.20.4. Resent-Message-ID: References: <20191019184837.21457-1-glv@posteo.net> <87tv7oo5xa.fsf@devup.no> From: Guillaume Le Vaillant In-reply-to: <87tv7oo5xa.fsf@devup.no> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 11:18:25 +0100 Message-ID: <87tv7nlx1q.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: Marius Bakke Cc: 37825@debbugs.gnu.org Marius Bakke skribis: > Guillaume Le Vaillant writes: > >> * gnu/packages/finance.scm (bitcoin-abc): Update to 0.20.4. >> [source]: Fix uri. >> [inputs]: Use bdb-5.3 (bdb-4.8 is not supported). >> [arguments]: Add 'fix-tests' phase. > > [...] > >> + (arguments >> + (substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments bitcoin-core) >> + ((#:phases phases) >> + `(modify-phases ,phases >> + (add-after 'unpack 'fix-tests >> + ;; Disable 'check-devtools' test which tries to run a >> + ;; python script that doesn't exist. >> + (lambda _ >> + (substitute* "Makefile.in" >> + (("^check-local: check-devtools") >> + "check-local:")) >> + #t)))))) > > Do you know why this script is not distributed? Should we provide it, > or was it a packaging mistake upstream? > > In any case I pushed this patch in > 28d46d9d4317180b348ad5baeddad8ef25ed430a. Thank you! I'm not sure if it's a packaging mistake or a makefile mistake (if these tests are not supposed to be run on a release version). They are tests to check that some development tools work correctly (e.g. tools to generate a header file which is included in the release tarball, to update the copyright years in the headers, etc).