On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:24:45PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 02:36:24PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
> > 
> > > From bf1f2a1c3621ba93ec99711ec78a79663acb6e82 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > Message-Id: <bf1f2a1c3621ba93ec99711ec78a79663acb6e82.1456734966.git.leo@famulari.name>
> > > From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
> > > Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:23:43 -0500
> > > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] gnu: ilmbase: Add patches to fix build on i686.
> > >
> > > Fixes <http://bugs.gnu.org/22049>.
> > >
> > > * gnu/packages/patches/ilmbase-testBox.patch,
> > > gnu/packages/patches/ilmbase-testBoxAlgo.patch: New files.
> > > * gnu-system.am (dist_patch_DATA): Add them.
> > > * gnu/packages/graphics.scm (ilmbase)[native-inputs]: Add patch/testBox
> > > and patch/testBoxAlgo.
> > > [arguments]: Add 'patch-for-i686' phase.
> > 
> > Cool!
> > 
> > I think it’d be reasonable to squash both patches in one file, and to
> > apply it unconditionally.  WDYT?
> 
> Sure, I'll send an updated patch.

Attached.

> 
> I'm wondering — does the current patch handle the conditional
> application of the patch properly? Just looking for some feedback on the
> approach...
> 
> > 
> > So I gather upgrading to IlmBase 2.0.1 is not an option?
> 
> 2.0.1 would be a downgrade for us; we are on 2.2.0. I did try it without
> success.
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Ludo’.
> 
> 
>