From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57326) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ismIm-00051A-Gl for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 06:30:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ismIk-0007FQ-Cl for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 06:30:04 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:34615) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ismIk-0007EP-95 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 06:30:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ismIk-0001we-4K for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Jan 2020 06:30:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#39142] Update USB_ModeSwitch. Resent-Message-ID: References: <20200115124810.j3myokleoa7le3sq@pelzflorian.localdomain> From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: <20200115124810.j3myokleoa7le3sq@pelzflorian.localdomain> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 11:29:41 +0000 Message-ID: <87sgkdovdm.fsf@cbaines.net> 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: pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de Cc: 39142@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) writes: > This series updates USB_ModeSwitch and its data package to their > November release. Both patches look good to me :) There's a somewhat uninformative comparison of Guix without these patches, and Guix with these patches here [1]. 1: https://guix-patches-data.cbaines.net/compare?base_commit=9edae6c05cd879393d59702f033f4c3ccce30dba&target_commit=0115c829cc1021b01b1686c5d28a7f6004390c83 But what it does show is that there aren't any additional lint warnings, and the derivations can be computed. I also tried building the derivations on x86_64-linux, and they built :D --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAl4i7CVfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcACgkQXiijOwuE 9XcKIw/+LqEmOWOksdjGPfRSIwvOIosnMr5peMDLrXdwZL0aSszlvG7tWYr9M3vI 1gED69rhc18yt5I8Apebgeqi0N4il9N1meqbEW+VPI3VUcts7JRwc+hmS2JNnOiH V3txFzCnWec1WVJCta91am9oz9tftnQqRFYlymLA090lxRIOb7ni88J2VPMzp/bJ BfxwYbrvRK/sZmsu/lB4WghUzMBY9+jNo5LkGA8q5sLcDT+eO9cIkvE4ZcRlu8/W 58Sk4N9/NfrNgl+fch2CvKFMnVUPx8v7hYKev5eN5mhXUk2vb2hMasDcoOFLOuks nr8Qty7PjZztaZth2zXVSIu/P+Q9Cmy/ffFjpOUjPUSlh9g2GKbx08piodZztfH2 uTpdTLEDUUZ8ZiS1lshdZfNzJMhtunmsmVb75y6ohzx4t5UgiqJSCmSlhcInIAkH vigH3GbithWDVybBB41+8tzpzV3ldNIywaOzJgekFbuYEAmSbI3+4GIl0eEgq2K0 wAyUkCsfDCJerVIizARgxCvdzaZZoN3Ba2VFraAojy2YpelIhwaJZqQiT+k7QAXZ XfM7WtE+3swXhzqvnHEEksRLr3rAOe1nVTjPfsTsQQ7L/o8jCuDX3sqEfcAaHS8m k62w2PyvlKiILCzmq0vLSJylnT03WXJASFUSK6Qn9K0ROP+EEak= =XfhU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--