From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Packaging Jami progress Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2019 22:46:06 +0100 Message-ID: <875zihclep.fsf@elephly.net> References: <20191215211230.66fea79e@interia.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57963) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1igbiR-00046z-EU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 16:46:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1igbiQ-0000lz-BH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 16:46:15 -0500 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21136) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1igbiP-0000Jb-QU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 15 Dec 2019 16:46:14 -0500 In-reply-to: <20191215211230.66fea79e@interia.pl> 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: Jan Wielkiewicz Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hi Jan, > TEST lavf-mov_rtphint > --- ./tests/ref/lavf/mov_rtphint 1970-01-01 00:00:01.000000000 > +0000 +++ tests/data/fate/lavf-mov_rtphint 2019-12-15 > 20:04:09.880137614 +0000 @@ -1,3 +1,3 @@ > -7014419d8267c2751314303a8fb303c1 *tests/data/lavf/lavf.mov_rtphint > -366449 tests/data/lavf/lavf.mov_rtphint > +872f923297706823384923086147e2b4 *tests/data/lavf/lavf.mov_rtphint > +370877 tests/data/lavf/lavf.mov_rtphint > tests/data/lavf/lavf.mov_rtphint CRC=0xbb2b949b > Test lavf-mov_rtphint failed. Look at > tests/data/fate/lavf-mov_rtphint.err for details. make: *** > [tests/Makefile:241: fate-lavf-mov_rtphint] Error 1 make: *** Waiting > for unfinished jobs.... The test appears to compare the hash of this file with the hash of a known good file. What are the contents? Can we adjust the test to test for what is actually of interest here? Otherwise it should be fine to disable it. -- Ricardo