On 2024-05-21, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Vagrant Cascadian writes: >> On 2024-05-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: >>> On 2024-05-20, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: >>>> vagrant@reproducible-builds.org writes: >>>>> From: Vagrant Cascadian >>> Or fixing diffoscope to work with the older xz version in master >>> (5.2.x?) that guix is already using, which, now that I have spelled out >>> all of the above, seems possibly a much better idea! >> >> This was "fixed" in upstream diffoscope git by setting a version >> requirement on the test, and I think this was a new test, so not exactly >> a regression in test coverage. >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/diffoscope/-/commit/17c061e767e612540dd0227c3fd1f9cab460a78f >> >> So we could build diffoscope from that commit instead, or manually apply >> the patch, or just wait till the next diffoscope version. > > Given the xz horror story, waiting a bit more seems a good option to me. > Thanks for explaining it in more details; it seems upstream is working > on a cleaned up 5.8.0 version, which isn't ready yet. Well, version 268 was just released, which fixes the xz issue ... but introduces a test failure for 7z... which is worked around in the attached patch. The other option might be to package 7zip (which seems more maintained than p7zip)... but that seems a bit longer term. Yet another option would be to revert the patch that broke the test with p7zip based 7z. But for now I propose the workaround to effectively skip this one test. :) live well, vagrant