From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46285) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dNPTT-0007ew-Ck for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:10:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dNPTO-0001RE-Sq for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:10:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55781) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dNPTO-0001QY-ES for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:10:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dNPTO-0001NY-8i for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Jun 2017 16:10:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#27428] [PATCH] gnu: gsl: Update to 2.4. Resent-Message-ID: Message-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Arun Isaac Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 01:39:30 +0530 In-reply-to: <20170620195538.GB2768@macbook42.flashner.co.il> References: <1a1bdf27.AEAALq4UWmUAAAAAAAAAAAOtUOAAAAACwQwAAAAAAAW9WABZSDbL@mailjet.com> <877f06ppcx.fsf@fastmail.com> <20170620195538.GB2768@macbook42.flashner.co.il> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Efraim Flashner Cc: 27428@debbugs.gnu.org Efraim Flashner writes: >> Marius Bakke writes: >>=20 >> > Arun Isaac writes: >> > >> >> * gnu/packages/maths.scm (gsl): Update to 2.4. >> > >> > This should also mention that #:parallel-tests? is now gone. Noted. I'll add this before pushing. > From digging around gsl's bug reports it looked like the devs there > don't have access to some of those machines either, or access to enough > of them to make sure the code works on different hardware. > > Unfortunately it still fails on my machine, with the first failure still > on the linalg directory. Its on my things to do list to try to fix some > of the tests but I haven't gotten around to it yet. In that case, shall I just assume status quo with respect to tests on these machines and push this patch? =