宋文武 writes: > Christopher Baines writes: > >> Previously, due to issues in the erlang package, many tests would fail, and >> the package would also nondeterministically fail to build. This is now >> fixed (by patching occurances of /bin/sh in the erlang package), so all the >> tests can be run. >> >> * gnu/packages/elixir.scm (elixir)[source]: Remove patches. The patch is no >> longer necessary, as all the tests now pass. >> [arguments]: Remove the fix-or-disable-tests phase, all the tests now >> pass. Add a new set-home phase to set the HOME environment variable prior to >> running the tests, as that was previously done at the start of the >> fix-or-disable-tests phase. >> * gnu/packages/patches/elixir-disable-failing-tests.patch: Delete this file, >> as it is now unused. > > I think generally we only need to mention the ‘what’ parts, not the > ‘why’ parts (“as …”) in the per-file details, but I guess it’s nothing > wrong to do it :-) I've pushed this now, thanks for taking a look :) I tweaked the changelog to not repeat the why parts. >> * gnu/local.mk: Remove now deleted patch. > * gnu/local.mk (GNU_SYSTEM_MODULES): ... Missed this bit, only just spotted what you were suggesting, sorry about that. >> --- >> gnu/local.mk | 1 - >> gnu/packages/elixir.scm | 36 +-- >> .../elixir-disable-failing-tests.patch | 284 ------------------ >> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 315 deletions(-) > > Cool, thank you!