From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add hdf4 Date: Fri, 27 May 2016 13:19:33 -0400 Message-ID: <20160527171933.GA29109@jasmine> References: <20160523181719.GA11083@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58614) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6LQF-0006qd-SG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 13:19:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6LQC-00083B-Li for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 13:19:43 -0400 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:40227) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b6LQB-00081J-CG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 May 2016 13:19:40 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Jeremy Robst Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 06:42:04PM +0100, Jeremy Robst wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 24 May 2016, Eric Bavier wrote: > > > Could we apply a variation of the hdf5-config-date.patch? > > Ok, I've based a patch on this one, and removed the other unreproduciable > output, so I've not got a reproduciable build. > > > This description is noticeably more verbose than that of the hdf5 > > package. It seems like the first two sentences are not necessary here. > > It would also be nice to summarize how hdf4 differs from hdf5. > > I've shortened the description, and added a statement that hdf4 is not > compatable with hdf5. It's difficult to add more details of the differences > without becoming verbose again, but let me know if you think it needs to be > tweaked again. That sounds perfect, but I still can't apply the patch with `git am`, although I can't figure out why this is. It *looks* like it should apply. Are you able to apply it to the current master branch (b5d08d7c28)?