On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:16:22 -0600
Eric Bavier <ericbavier@centurylink.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:10:06 +0000
> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> wrote:
> 
> > Eric Bavier <ericbavier@centurylink.net> writes:
> >   
> > > On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 22:56:27 +0000
> > > Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> wrote:
> > >    
> > >> ericbavier@centurylink.net writes:
> > >>    
> > >> > From: Eric Bavier <bavier@member.fsf.org>
> > >> >
> > >> > * gnu/packages/python.scm (python-2.7)[arguments]: 'EXTRATESTOPTS' ->
> > >> > 'TESTOPTS'.  This overrides the default '-l' argument for memory leak checks
> > >> > which is not compatible with the -j for parallelism.
> > >> > ---
> > >> >  gnu/packages/python.scm | 2 +-
> > >> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >> >
> > >> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/python.scm b/gnu/packages/python.scm
> > >> > index 9b43f465cc..dffded738d 100644
> > >> > --- a/gnu/packages/python.scm
> > >> > +++ b/gnu/packages/python.scm
> > >> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@
> > >> >                              (assoc-ref %outputs "out") "/lib"))
> > >> >         ;; With no -j argument tests use all available cpus, so provide one.
> > >> >         #:make-flags
> > >> > -       (list (format #f "EXTRATESTOPTS=-j~d" (parallel-job-count)))
> > >> > +       (list (format #f "TESTOPTS=-j~d" (parallel-job-count)))
> > >> >
> > >> >          #:modules ((ice-9 ftw) (ice-9 match)
> > >> >                     (guix build utils) (guix build gnu-build-system))    
> > >>
> > >> Hey Eric,
> > >>
> > >> I've also been looking at some Python 2 things on core-updates today,
> > >> trying to get the linkchecker package building again.
> > >>
> > >> I've just pushed a slightly different patch, but to this effect to
> > >> core-updates, and only just seen this message, sorry about that.    
> > >
> > > Not a problem.
> > >    
> > >> Thanks for looking at it though, this approach is probably neater, as I
> > >> used substitute* instead.    
> > >
> > > Would you like to keep your patch, or apply this one instead?    
> > 
> > I'm quite happy to switch to this approach. I don't know whether the
> > best way to do that is to switch out the patches by force-pushing to
> > core-updates, or to just apply your patch on top though...  
> 
> I can just adjust my patch.

An adjusted patch, which reverts Christopher's patch was pushed to
core-updates in commit 32922190977f701694880254a71feb2752222f94

`~Eric