From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60800) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edtv8-0005Rk-Qv for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:27:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edtv4-0002Bf-Sb for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:27:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:59314) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1edtv4-0002BB-MC for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:27:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1edtv4-000451-GK for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Jan 2018 03:27:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#30030] [PATCH core-updates] gnu: java-jeromq: Update to 0.4.3. Resent-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87lggp579v.fsf@garuda.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> References: <20180108201529.11328-1-boskovits@gmail.com> <87lggp579v.fsf@garuda.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:26:04 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f8c2a36c9b605636d4c79" 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: Chris Marusich Cc: 30030@debbugs.gnu.org --001a113f8c2a36c9b605636d4c79 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry about that. I introduced this update because I got test failures. After updating I did not experience the failure even after several rebuilds, but the earlier version failed consistently. I did not think, that the failure is not deterministic. I will reopen this github issue then: https://github.com/Boskovits/guix/issues/57 2018-01-23 9:06 GMT+01:00 Chris Marusich : > G=C3=A1bor Boskovits writes: > > > * gnu/packages/java.scm (java-jeromq): Update to 0.4.3. > > Unfortunately, when this patch is applied to commit > f3cd6633ce7348fb92735d6cd708bdc8b3b063ee (the current tip of > core-updates), the "check" phase of the build fails. Actually, it fails > even before the patch, so you this change doesn't break it. > > The failures are not deterministic. Various classes fail, and it's not > always the same one every time. I briefly looked at the failures, and I > couldn't make much sense of it. I think there are two avenues of > investigation: > > 1) Git bisect to find out which commit introduced the break. > > 2) Report the failure(s) upstream. > > -- > Chris > --001a113f8c2a36c9b605636d4c79 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry about that.
I introduced this update because I g= ot test failures.
After updating I did not experience the failure= even after several rebuilds, but the earlier version failed consistently.<= /div>
I did not think, that the failure is not deterministic.
I will reopen this github issue then:


2018-01-23 9:06 GMT+01:00 Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@g= mail.com>:
G=C3=A1bor Boskovits <boskovits@= gmail.com> writes:

> * gnu/packages/java.scm (java-jeromq): Update to 0.4.3.

Unfortunately, when this patch is applied to commit
f3cd6633ce7348fb92735d6cd708bdc8b3b063ee (the current tip of
core-updates), the "check" phase of the build fails.=C2=A0 Actual= ly, it fails
even before the patch, so you this change doesn't break it.

The failures are not deterministic.=C2=A0 Various classes fail, and it'= s not
always the same one every time.=C2=A0 I briefly looked at the failures, and= I
couldn't make much sense of it.=C2=A0 I think there are two avenues of<= br> investigation:

1) Git bisect to find out which commit introduced the break.

2) Report the failure(s) upstream.

--
Chris

--001a113f8c2a36c9b605636d4c79--