From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47302) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dzV6k-0000fu-DG for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 17:52:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dzV6g-0006CW-Em for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 17:52:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:38259) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dzV6g-0006CI-41 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 17:52:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dzV6f-0001oo-QD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Oct 2017 17:52:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#28616] disable failing bluez test Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <87wp4f9oel.fsf@thomasdanckaert.be> References: <20170927.092105.443051876281349513.post@thomasdanckaert.be> <87h8vo9by2.fsf@fastmail.com> <20170927.225911.2002293308035929753.post@thomasdanckaert.be> <20170928.084225.101205341925829279.post@thomasdanckaert.be> <87wp4f9oel.fsf@thomasdanckaert.be> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 23:50:56 +0200 Message-ID: <874lrfew8v.fsf@fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: Thomas Danckaert Cc: 28616@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Thomas Danckaert writes: > Thomas Danckaert writes: > >> Now I checked properly, and the test still fails on this laptop. From >> the thread I linked, I understand it's also a timing/time-out issue, >> so perhaps the performance of the build host plays a role. > > On another (faster) machine, I also manage to build bluez. As the issue > doesn't seem to affect many people (most use substitutes anyway), maybe > we can keep the package as it this for now, and hope upstream improves > the situation at some point (it's been reported, after all). I think we should apply the patch regardless (on 'core-updates'), with a link to the upstream discussion. IMO it's more important to be able to build from source regardless of hardware, than running this one unit test. What do you think? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlnUBkAACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPqSZggA0F5dE8wWnCXLWGLuzMC5sbPl5cuhcn+xdMK9i2DK0qY0yF5qZbpbEVwz ld/kgH1uhXV0nqxrymrzavv6w+oWJtH4w5xS9lYQSeog1IQO/0fDhVnXPH5sGm4W XtLPi1wTeD4SdJa4aszd1hmsEs8MkiyEM3k1HtX+mX/LHPDIWxWNbRDrQq4Ada5V ipzLTFVseI4PB2u1K1oUIZBPmt4kkhkwf3hHpKHZClkHZZwpT1W+8/NgDeeQeUM0 c3QFL4qo0MfjL3Ghsp86qG4ppcW630lMqGvotu8Akh1FA1fKT4MQYTIgQYMfrh+s XNeE08cKEkOX7wS9n3deECojxEh24A== =WGdD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--