[bug#69579] [PATCH] gnu: python-joblib: Update to 1.3.2.

[Nicolas Graves]

On 2024-03-13 12:39, Christopher Baines wrote:

> Nicolas Graves via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> On 2024-03-08 12:29, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-03-06, Nicolas Graves wrote:
>>>> * gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm (python-joblib): Update to 1.3.2.
>>>> [build-system]: Update to pyproject-build-system.
>>>> [arguments]
>>>>   <#:phases>: Remove check phase.
>>>>   <#:test-flags>: Keep former test flag.
>>>> [propagated-inputs]: Add python-psutil.
>>>>
>>>> Change-Id: Ide110a19431b1d26e1d7dd8d1adc3b3f0f417749
>>>> ---
>>>>  gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm | 22 ++++++++--------------
>>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm b/gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm
>>>> index 46232d3c98..122dca6e4e 100644
>>>> --- a/gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm
>>>> +++ b/gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm
>>>> @@ -6169,26 +6169,20 @@ (define-public python-pystitcher
>>>>  (define-public python-joblib
>>>>    (package
>>>>      (name "python-joblib")
>>>> -    (version "1.1.1")
>>>> +    (version "1.3.2")
>>>>      (source (origin
>>>>                (method url-fetch)
>>>>                (uri (pypi-uri "joblib" version))
>>>>                (sha256
>>>>                 (base32
>>>> -                "0019p280s2k941mihl67l7y6amwx86639xp3zvpsg1lmyish67rh"))))
>>>> -    (build-system python-build-system)
>>>> +                "1cbjjzsh9hzaqr2cqja95673p7j88b8bd02hjpkq8xz147k6by4j"))))
>>>> +    (build-system pyproject-build-system)
>>>>      (arguments
>>>> -     `(#:phases
>>>> -       (modify-phases %standard-phases
>>>> -         (replace 'check
>>>> -           (lambda* (#:key tests? #:allow-other-keys)
>>>> -             (when tests?
>>>> -               (setenv "JOBLIB_MULTIPROCESSING" "0")
>
> We should look at why this was added, and whether it should be kept.

This is only present in the check phase, not in the final package. I
guess when we switched to the pyproject-build-system or simply updated,
this simply wasn't necessary anymore.

Since tests were consistantly (--check) passing, I do not see the need
to investigate that.

>
>> All in all, I don't see a precise reason why this patch is responsible
>> for any of the failures.
>
> QA seems to agree at least, there looks to be some issues, but this
> change seems to not make the situation worse at least.

-- 
Best regards,
Nicolas Graves