From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Bakke Subject: bug#29363: Single test failure building Guix Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 22:39:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87zi7fpb0o.fsf@fastmail.com> References: <89edb4cc307bfae5db7812abe3b4a37a@mykolab.com> <87a7zgtquv.fsf@fastmail.com> <871sksoyxj.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58995) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHGH1-0006wo-UR for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:40:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHGGx-0004oL-1X for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:40:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:42850) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHGGw-0004oC-Ur for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:40:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eHGGw-0005Tb-Jm for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:40:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <871sksoyxj.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 29363@debbugs.gnu.org, Rutger Helling --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Alternately, we could comment out (> freed 0) if that=E2=80=99s enough, w= ith a > comment explaining why, and do =E2=80=9Cmake update-guix-package=E2=80=9D= . That way > we=E2=80=99d avoid the extra build phase. > > WDYT? Oh, I just re-read this message and realized you mentioned doing this in tests/store.scm rather than working around it in the "guix" package. Sound good to me. I will do this and remove the workaround. Sorry for the confusion. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAloUnPcACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPpw1Af/Ypq/inSRnCI9Lf4xCrU3+OGjuzvoy4/Ow3xngOiPO34VmZ/wy3O7tVHr iTHITHjFUmTYBFz1zxIrhaiZlqbpjYD4FxFKrJViGnQjN1GCcdtGZ1A+V9LHvj87 EQ9BZX7PdMw7bRztD4QOuOH6CtzN/HXlvA5ahGx3NYg3pBCv5aHsuf35b5j3Sh4e hITFSlFh0CBL1mxfaX0G2ZiO+CCdy5DxQURPocDKJv9W0OpTa+CZssIo4l35s7B+ met/LCwQ7F0tLI/bTlrJtcMoC1RPr1J5Z3ODF2Nm0s2zB2vC5AbISJfJmBcDONEz sZfou2obPl8iQi9yjOwsER/n5H5InA== =4ZRP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--