GNU bug report logs -
#61798
infodoc patch doesn't apply to linux 6.2
Previous Next
Reported by: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 02:22:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: notabug
Done: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
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 61798 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 61798 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
:
bug#61798
; Package
guix
.
(Sun, 26 Feb 2023 02:22:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
.
(Sun, 26 Feb 2023 02:22:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:55:51AM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> .../patches/linux-libre-infodocs-target.patch | 88 ++++++
This patch doesn't apply to linux-libre 6.2.1, as shown below. If I
understand correctly, it's been applied upstream, but I don't understand
how to adjust things on our end.
Can you take a look and send a patch that applies on top of #61770?
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/61770
https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/469982/details
------
applying '/gnu/store/b9kc2xs6407hmpzcvx44g1mi88ls0509-linux-libre-infodocs-target.patch'...
Backtrace:
5 (primitive-load "/gnu/store/6hr5qlvj92idkp2hmnwk7f16ah4?")
In ice-9/eval.scm:
619:8 4 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fffeffcfc80> "lin?") #))
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
142:2 3 (dynamic-wind #<procedure 7fffeff727a0 at ice-9/eval.s?> ?)
In ice-9/eval.scm:
619:8 2 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fffeffcfc80>)))
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
634:9 1 (for-each #<procedure apply-patch (a)> _)
In guix/build/utils.scm:
762:6 0 (invoke "/gnu/store/z39hnrwds1dgcbpfgj8dnv2cngjb2xbl-p?" ?)
guix/build/utils.scm:762:6: In procedure invoke:
ERROR:
1. &invoke-error:
program: "/gnu/store/z39hnrwds1dgcbpfgj8dnv2cngjb2xbl-patch-2.7.6/bin/patch"
arguments: ("--force" "--no-backup-if-mismatch" "-p1" "--input" "/gnu/store/b9kc2xs6407hmpzcvx44g1mi88ls0509-linux-libre-infodocs-target.patch")
exit-status: 1
term-signal: #f
stop-signal: #f
builder for
`/gnu/store/qvhbmfmsjryxs0mwmv0apl2110vdmaz2-linux-libre-6.2.1-guix.tar.xz.drv' failed with exit code 1
------
Information forwarded
to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
:
bug#61798
; Package
guix
.
(Sun, 26 Feb 2023 04:24:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 61798 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Leo,
Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 11:55:51AM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> .../patches/linux-libre-infodocs-target.patch | 88 ++++++
>
> This patch doesn't apply to linux-libre 6.2.1, as shown below. If I
> understand correctly, it's been applied upstream, but I don't understand
> how to adjust things on our end.
It's indeed been applied upstream. Can't we just drop our local version
of it?
--
Thanks,
Maxim
Information forwarded
to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
:
bug#61798
; Package
guix
.
(Sun, 26 Feb 2023 17:39:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 61798 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:23:13PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> It's indeed been applied upstream. Can't we just drop our local version
> of it?
Do I need to set the 'doc-supported?' value somehow for particular
kernel versions? It would be helpful for me if you could try it, if this
stuff is still fresh in your mind, since you implemented it.
Information forwarded
to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
:
bug#61798
; Package
guix
.
(Mon, 27 Feb 2023 13:41:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 61798 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Leo,
Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 25, 2023 at 11:23:13PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>> It's indeed been applied upstream. Can't we just drop our local version
>> of it?
>
> Do I need to set the 'doc-supported?' value somehow for particular
> kernel versions? It would be helpful for me if you could try it, if this
> stuff is still fresh in your mind, since you implemented it.
This should allow you to proceed as usual:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
gnu/packages/linux.scm | 10 +++++-----
modified gnu/packages/linux.scm
@@ -620,8 +620,7 @@ (define (source-with-patches source patches)
(define-public linux-libre-6.2-source
(source-with-patches linux-libre-6.2-pristine-source
(list %boot-logo-patch
- %linux-libre-arm-export-__sync_icache_dcache-patch
- (search-patch "linux-libre-infodocs-target.patch"))))
+ %linux-libre-arm-export-__sync_icache_dcache-patch)))
(define-public linux-libre-6.1-source
(source-with-patches linux-libre-6.1-pristine-source
@@ -889,10 +888,11 @@ (define (config->string options)
;;; Kernel package utilities.
;;;
-(define (doc-supported? version)
+(define (apply-infodoc-patch? version)
;; Versions older than 5.10 have different enough build scripts that the
;; infodocs patch doesn't apply.
- (version>=? version "5.10"))
+ (and (version>=? version "5.10")
+ (not (version>=? version "6.2")))) ;patch applied upstream
(define* (make-linux-libre version gnu-revision hash-string supported-systems
#:key
@@ -905,7 +905,7 @@ (define* (make-linux-libre version gnu-revision hash-string supported-systems
(extra-options %default-extra-linux-options)
(patches
`(,%boot-logo-patch
- ,@(if (doc-supported? version)
+ ,@(if (apply-infodoc-patch? version)
(list (search-patch
"linux-libre-infodocs-target.patch"))
'()))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
--
Thanks,
Maxim
Added tag(s) notabug.
Request was from
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Thu, 02 Mar 2023 14:57:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug closed, send any further explanations to
61798 <at> debbugs.gnu.org and Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Request was from
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Thu, 02 Mar 2023 14:57:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Information forwarded
to
bug-guix <at> gnu.org
:
bug#61798
; Package
guix
.
(Sat, 04 Mar 2023 00:36:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #21 received at 61798-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 08:40:36AM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> This should allow you to proceed as usual:
[...]
Thanks! I've prepared the patch, availabe as part of this patch series:
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/61947
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sat, 01 Apr 2023 11:24:09 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 362 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.