GNU bug report logs -
#43427
[PATCH] gnu: zstd: Update to 1.4.5.
Previous Next
Reported by: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:12:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 43427 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 43427 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43427
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:12:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
.
(Tue, 15 Sep 2020 15:12:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
From 3875f9c53d6aa9a3c97e0187ab614f44fcf04acf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:06:48 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: zstd: Update to 1.4.5.
* gnu/packages/compression.scm (zstd): Update to 1.4.5.
set pkg-config paths in make-flags (see zstd <at> e668c9b5).
---
gnu/packages/compression.scm | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/compression.scm b/gnu/packages/compression.scm
index 97f254ff6e..7f4662dc8b 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/compression.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/compression.scm
@@ -1383,14 +1383,14 @@ or junctions, and always follows hard links.")
(define-public zstd
(package
(name "zstd")
- (version "1.4.4")
+ (version "1.4.5")
(source
(origin
(method url-fetch)
(uri (string-append "
https://github.com/facebook/zstd/releases/download/"
"v" version "/zstd-" version ".tar.gz"))
(sha256
- (base32 "05ckxap00qvc0j51d3ci38150cxsw82w7s9zgd5fgzspnzmp1vsr"))))
+ (base32 "17nf0r20360i80689bg5ipxbk2413b2dn3z7wj8byqpiddy1rscq"))))
(build-system gnu-build-system)
(outputs '("out" ;1.2MiB executables and
documentation
"lib" ;1.2MiB shared library and headers
@@ -1425,6 +1425,11 @@ or junctions, and always follows hard links.")
(string-append "PREFIX=" (assoc-ref %outputs "out"))
(string-append "LIBDIR=" (assoc-ref %outputs "lib") "/lib")
(string-append "INCLUDEDIR=" (assoc-ref %outputs "lib")
"/include")
+ ;; Hard-code the relative paths written to the pkg-config
file.
+ ;; zstd's lib/Makefile expects the exec path ("out" output) to
+ ;; be a parent path of the library path ("lib" output).
+ (string-append "PCLIBDIR=" "lib")
+ (string-append "PCINCDIR=" "include")
;; Skip auto-detection of, and creating a dependency on, the
build
;; environment's ‘xz’ for what amounts to a dubious feature
anyway.
"HAVE_LZMA=0"
--
2.28.0
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
Reply sent
to
Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe <at> gnu.org>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:09:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:09:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #10 received at 43427-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hello Greg,
The update is already present on core-updates branch, see:
386457b7bda963be9f0119a785b71bc64e0c105e.
Thanks for the patch anyway.
Mathieu
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43427
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 22 Sep 2020 10:00:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #13 received at 43427 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Greg,
Mathieu Othacehe 写道:
> The update is already present on core-updates branch,
Sorry for the duplicate work! How were you to've known this, you
ask?
$ guix refresh --list-dependent PACKAGE
or ‘-l’ for short will list the number of rebuilds that a hash
change in PACKAGE would trigger.
If it's higher than 300, the patch belongs on the ‘staging’ or
‘core-updates’ branches instead of ‘master’. The exact numbers
are in the ‘Submitting Patches’ section of the Guix manual.
In practice, it's not always clear-cut. A patch that rebuilds
fewer than 300 packages but includes IceCat, Ungoogled Chromium,
and LibreOffice probably belongs on ‘staging’ regardless. A patch
that rebuilds 350 (fast-building) Perl packages might be OK for
master.
It's good practice to include the branch name (e.g., ‘[PATCH
core-updates]’) when submitting patches not suitable for master.
Kind regards,
T G-R
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org
:
bug#43427
; Package
guix-patches
.
(Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:24:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #16 received at 43427 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Thanks, T-G-R. I will endeavor to tag for staging and core-updates going forward. Not sure how I missed the prior commit. I may have been looking among patches. Not sure how I missed the git log, and in the future I will be certain to simply check the latest version from each branch.
Would it be feasible to have `guix refresh` consider staging and core-updates when reporting available updates?
Greg
> On Sep 22, 2020, at 5:59 AM, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr> wrote:
>
> Greg,
>
> Mathieu Othacehe 写道:
>> The update is already present on core-updates branch,
>
> Sorry for the duplicate work! How were you to've known this, you ask?
>
> $ guix refresh --list-dependent PACKAGE
>
> or ‘-l’ for short will list the number of rebuilds that a hash change in PACKAGE would trigger.
>
> If it's higher than 300, the patch belongs on the ‘staging’ or ‘core-updates’ branches instead of ‘master’. The exact numbers are in the ‘Submitting Patches’ section of the Guix manual.
>
> In practice, it's not always clear-cut. A patch that rebuilds fewer than 300 packages but includes IceCat, Ungoogled Chromium, and LibreOffice probably belongs on ‘staging’ regardless. A patch that rebuilds 350 (fast-building) Perl packages might be OK for master.
>
> It's good practice to include the branch name (e.g., ‘[PATCH core-updates]’) when submitting patches not suitable for master.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> T G-R
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:24:04 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 159 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.