[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#43738: Patch file names too long
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
bug#43738: Patch file names too long |
Date: |
Sat, 03 Oct 2020 11:03:07 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) |
Brett Gilio <brettg@gnu.org> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> There are several patch file names that are too long for ‘tar’, as
>> reported during ‘make dist’:
>>
>> tar:
>> guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/ocaml-bisect-fix-camlp4-in-another-directory.patch
>> dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ŝutita
>> tar:
>> guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-signature-of-multiplyCheckOverflow.patch
>> dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ŝutita
>> tar:
>> guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python2-pygobject-2-gi-info-type-error-domain.patch
>> dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ŝutita
>> tar:
>> guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-division-by-zero-BlockCodec-runPull.patch
>> dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ŝutita
>> tar:
>> guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python-robotframework-honor-source-date-epoch.patch
>> dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ŝutita
>>
>> ‘guix lint’ reports it as well, but apparently this is easily
>> overlooked.
>>
>> Ludo’.
>
> Does it matter that this is coming from a dirty working tree? Maybe not.
Nope, it doesn’t matter.
Ludo’.