emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#34056: closed ([PATCH] core-updates -- gnu: python


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#34056: closed ([PATCH] core-updates -- gnu: python2: Fix test flags.)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 04:06:02 +0000

Your message dated Tue, 22 Jan 2019 22:05:34 -0600
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: [bug#34056] [PATCH] core-updates -- gnu: python2: Fix test 
flags.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #34056,
regarding [PATCH] core-updates -- gnu: python2: Fix test flags.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
34056: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34056
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH] core-updates -- gnu: python2: Fix test flags. Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 01:18:49 -0600
From: Eric Bavier <address@hidden>

* gnu/packages/python.scm (python-2.7)[arguments]: 'EXTRATESTOPTS' ->
'TESTOPTS'.  This overrides the default '-l' argument for memory leak checks
which is not compatible with the -j for parallelism.
---
 gnu/packages/python.scm | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/python.scm b/gnu/packages/python.scm
index 9b43f465cc..dffded738d 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/python.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/python.scm
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@
                             (assoc-ref %outputs "out") "/lib"))
        ;; With no -j argument tests use all available cpus, so provide one.
        #:make-flags
-       (list (format #f "EXTRATESTOPTS=-j~d" (parallel-job-count)))
+       (list (format #f "TESTOPTS=-j~d" (parallel-job-count)))
 
         #:modules ((ice-9 ftw) (ice-9 match)
                    (guix build utils) (guix build gnu-build-system))
-- 
2.20.1




--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#34056] [PATCH] core-updates -- gnu: python2: Fix test flags. Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 22:05:34 -0600
On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:16:22 -0600
Eric Bavier <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 19:10:06 +0000
> Christopher Baines <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > Eric Bavier <address@hidden> writes:
> >   
> > > On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 22:56:27 +0000
> > > Christopher Baines <address@hidden> wrote:
> > >    
> > >> address@hidden writes:
> > >>    
> > >> > From: Eric Bavier <address@hidden>
> > >> >
> > >> > * gnu/packages/python.scm (python-2.7)[arguments]: 'EXTRATESTOPTS' ->
> > >> > 'TESTOPTS'.  This overrides the default '-l' argument for memory leak 
> > >> > checks
> > >> > which is not compatible with the -j for parallelism.
> > >> > ---
> > >> >  gnu/packages/python.scm | 2 +-
> > >> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >> >
> > >> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/python.scm b/gnu/packages/python.scm
> > >> > index 9b43f465cc..dffded738d 100644
> > >> > --- a/gnu/packages/python.scm
> > >> > +++ b/gnu/packages/python.scm
> > >> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@
> > >> >                              (assoc-ref %outputs "out") "/lib"))
> > >> >         ;; With no -j argument tests use all available cpus, so 
> > >> > provide one.
> > >> >         #:make-flags
> > >> > -       (list (format #f "EXTRATESTOPTS=-j~d" (parallel-job-count)))
> > >> > +       (list (format #f "TESTOPTS=-j~d" (parallel-job-count)))
> > >> >
> > >> >          #:modules ((ice-9 ftw) (ice-9 match)
> > >> >                     (guix build utils) (guix build gnu-build-system))  
> > >> >   
> > >>
> > >> Hey Eric,
> > >>
> > >> I've also been looking at some Python 2 things on core-updates today,
> > >> trying to get the linkchecker package building again.
> > >>
> > >> I've just pushed a slightly different patch, but to this effect to
> > >> core-updates, and only just seen this message, sorry about that.    
> > >
> > > Not a problem.
> > >    
> > >> Thanks for looking at it though, this approach is probably neater, as I
> > >> used substitute* instead.    
> > >
> > > Would you like to keep your patch, or apply this one instead?    
> > 
> > I'm quite happy to switch to this approach. I don't know whether the
> > best way to do that is to switch out the patches by force-pushing to
> > core-updates, or to just apply your patch on top though...  
> 
> I can just adjust my patch.

An adjusted patch, which reverts Christopher's patch was pushed to
core-updates in commit 32922190977f701694880254a71feb2752222f94

`~Eric

Attachment: pgpX1vjvopcKO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]