From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
Subject: Re: Python2-jsonschema fails
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2016 09:47:45 +0100
Message-ID: <20160119084745.GA4404@debian>
References: <20160118101556.GA4977@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr>
	<569CE0B4.5010307@gmail.com>
	<20160118164127.56e5b075@debian-netbook>
	<569CFC51.2000903@gmail.com>
	<20160118150334.GA9800@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr>
	<20160118224600.GA5918@jasmine>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48002)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1aLRxC-0004AK-K9
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:47:55 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1aLRx9-0004OK-DQ
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:47:54 -0500
Received: from mailrelay1.public.one.com ([91.198.169.124]:51338)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <andreas@enge.fr>) id 1aLRx9-0004OD-2P
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:47:51 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160118224600.GA5918@jasmine>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 05:46:00PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> Shall we open a bug for this? It was discussed in #22013 [0] but that
> specific issue was solved and the bug was closed in expectation of a
> more general bug report.

I think it would be helpful to not forget the problem.

Andreas