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

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

[debbugs-tracker] bug#30097: closed ([core-updates] nspr 4.17 not reprod


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#30097: closed ([core-updates] nspr 4.17 not reproducible)
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:21:01 +0000

Your message dated Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:20:35 +0100
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#30097: [core-updates] nspr 4.17 not reproducible
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #30097,
regarding [core-updates] nspr 4.17 not reproducible
to be marked as done.

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


-- 
30097: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=30097
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [core-updates] nspr 4.17 not reproducible Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2018 17:23:29 +0100
nspr 4.17 is not reproducible.
Diffoscope output attached.

Attachment: nspr-diffoscope
Description: Binary data


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#30097: [core-updates] nspr 4.17 not reproducible Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 17:20:35 +0100 User-agent: Notmuch/0.26 (https://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/25.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Gábor Boskovits <address@hidden> writes:

> 2018-01-14 20:51 GMT+01:00 Marius Bakke <address@hidden>:
>
>> Gábor Boskovits <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>> > 2018-01-14 19:28 GMT+01:00 Marius Bakke <address@hidden>:
>> >
>> >> Gábor Boskovits <address@hidden> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > nspr 4.17 is not reproducible.
>> >> > Diffoscope output attached.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the report!
>> >>
>> >> The attached patch should solve it.  Since there are quite a few
>> >> dependent packages, I'd like to push this to a new 'staging' branch that
>> >> will be started shortly after the core-updates merge.  WDYT?
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it should go to a branch.
>> >
>> > I also don't know if this fixes the difference also, where an additional
>> ;
>> > is present...
>> > Could you check this, or should I run a test with the patch?
>> > It seems like a 2 byte difference.
>>
>> It passes `guix build --rounds=2`, so I'm not sure what was up with that
>> ";".
>>
>
> Most probably it is some kind of checksum which includes the timestamp.
> If it passes "guix build --rounds=2" it should be fine.
> Thanks for the clarification.

I pushed this to a new 'staging' branch based off core-updates.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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