[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#54036] [PATCH] gnu: gnunet: Update to 0.15.3.
From: |
Tanguy LE CARROUR |
Subject: |
[bug#54036] [PATCH] gnu: gnunet: Update to 0.15.3. |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Feb 2022 12:43:44 +0100 |
User-agent: |
alot/0.10 |
Hi Maxim,
Thanks for taking some time to review!
Quoting Maxim Cournoyer (2022-02-21 22:23:28)
> tags 54036 moreinfo
"moreinfo" indeed! ^_^'
> Tanguy Le Carrour <tanguy@bioneland.org> writes:
> > The lint command reports problems that I don't know how and if I have to
> > fix:
> >
> > ```
> > […]/gnu/packages/gnunet.scm:268:4: gnunet@0.15.3: label 'gnutls' does not
> > match package name 'gnutls-dane'
> > […]/gnu/packages/gnunet.scm:268:4: gnunet@0.15.3: label 'libidn' does not
> > match package name 'libidn2'
> > […]/gnu/packages/gnunet.scm:268:4: gnunet@0.15.3: label 'libjpeg' does not
> > match package name 'libjpeg-turbo'
> > […]/gnu/packages/gnunet.scm:360:14: gnunet@0.15.3: permanent redirect from
> > https://gnunet.org/ to https://www.gnunet.org/en/
> > ```
>
> Running './pre-inst-env guix style gnunet' should take care of the first 3.
It didn't scream `style` to me, but OK. I'll do that.
> For the last one, I'd use the new suggested URL.
Oh, this one was an easy one I was supposed to fix myself! Sorry for the noise!
> > * gnu/packages/gnunet.scm (gnunet): Update to 0.15.3.
> > [arguments] Disable failing tests.
> > ---
> > gnu/packages/gnunet.scm | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/gnunet.scm b/gnu/packages/gnunet.scm
> > index 1c09c9047b..34c6efddcb 100644
> > --- a/gnu/packages/gnunet.scm
> > +++ b/gnu/packages/gnunet.scm
> > @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ (define-public gnurl
> > (define-public gnunet
> > (package
> > (name "gnunet")
> > - (version "0.13.1")
> > + (version "0.15.3")
> > (source
> > (origin
> > (method url-fetch)
> > @@ -262,7 +262,7 @@ (define-public gnunet
> > ".tar.gz"))
> > (sha256
> > (base32
> > - "15jnca5zxng7r6m3qzq9lr73xxq0v6mvcp0lny3zrlkz5s2nmmq3"))))
> > + "1iafi1rzx62lf26awmwk17ih3y7kyhr7mrqc4am8w1qyyjl6j9nn"))))
> > (build-system gnu-build-system)
> > (inputs
> > `(("bluez" ,bluez)
> > @@ -301,6 +301,8 @@ (define-public gnunet
> > (("test_transport_api_manipulation_cfg\\$\\(EXEEXT\\)
> > \\\\\n") "")
> > (("test_transport_api_udp_nat\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n") "")
> >
> > (("test_transport_blacklisting_multiple_plugins\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n") ""))
> > + (substitute* "src/cadet/Makefile"
> > + (("test_cadet_2_speed_reliable\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n") ""))
> > (substitute* "src/testbed/Makefile"
> > (("test_testbed_api_2peers_1controller\\$\\(EXEEXT\\)
> > \\\\\n") "")
> > (("test_testbed_api_statistics\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n") "")
> > @@ -308,13 +310,24 @@ (define-public gnunet
> > (("test_testbed_api_test_timeout\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n") "")
> > (("test_testbed_api_topology\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n") "")
> > (("test_testbed_api_topology_clique\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n")
> > ""))
> > + (substitute* "src/testing/Makefile"
> > + (("test_testing_api_cmd_netjail\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n") "")
> > + (("test_testing_peerstartup\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n") "")
> > + (("test_testing_peerstartup2\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n") ""))
> > (substitute* "src/topology/Makefile"
> > (("^check_PROGRAMS.*") "\n")
> > (("test_gnunet_daemon_topology\\$\\(EXEEXT\\)\n") ""))
> > (substitute* "src/namestore/Makefile"
> > - (("\\$\\(am__append_2\\)") ""))
> > + (("\\$\\(am__append_2\\)") "")
> > + ((" test_namestore_lookup\\.sh ") " "))
> > + (substitute* "src/fs/Makefile"
> > + (("test_fs_search_with_and\\$\\(EXEEXT\\) \\\\\n") ""))
> > (substitute* "src/gns/Makefile"
> > - (("\\$\\(am__append_4\\)") ""))
> > + (("\\$\\(am__append_4\\)") "")
> > + (("test_gns_caa_lookup.sh test_gns_mx_lookup.sh")
> > "test_gns_caa_lookup.sh"))
> > + (substitute* "src/revocation/Makefile"
> > + (("^check_SCRIPTS.*") "")
> > + ((" test_local_revocation.py\n") ""))
> > (substitute* "contrib/Makefile"
> > (("^check_PROGRAMS.*") "\n"))
> > ;; 'test' from coreutils doesn't behave as the test expects.
>
> These needs to be commented to show that we understand why they fail and
> why it's OK/expected in our build environment. If we don't understand
> why we need to investigate more/seek support from the GNUnet authors so
> that they can help us figure it out or fix real problems on their end.
Actually, I had a ticket [1] open for the upgrade to 0.12.2 a year ago.
[1]: https://bugs.gnunet.org/view.php?id=6114
I'll have to update it and mention it in our package definition.
Actually, I should try to enable the previously disabled tests see if
they now pass, but… running GNUnet's tests is sooooo long!!!
I'll keep you posted when I send the new patch!
Regards,
--
Tanguy