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

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

bug#71024: closed (Update diffoscope to 268)


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#71024: closed (Update diffoscope to 268)
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 17:32:01 +0000

Your message dated Fri, 31 May 2024 10:30:50 -0700
with message-id <877cf9opmd.fsf@wireframe>
and subject line Re: bug#71024: Update diffoscope to 268
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #71024,
regarding Update diffoscope to 268
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
71024: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=71024
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Update diffoscope to 267 (with xz bonus update) Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 18:46:53 -0700
The upcoming patches update diffoscope to 267, which requires a newer
version of xz to pass the test suites (No, no, not the *evil* versions,
just the same version that is in core-updates, 5.4.5! (although that
version has shadows cast on it too due to involvement of a certain
infamous internet identity, caveat emptor)).

I made a versioned xz variant to avoid a world rebuild so we can update
diffoscope before updating core-updates, hopefully I did it mostly
right... :)

Uhhh... so yeah, send in the clowns... er, patches!

live well,
  vagrant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#71024: Update diffoscope to 268 Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 10:30:50 -0700
On 2024-05-29, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> writes:
>> Well, again, upstream has fixed it even better:
>>
>>   
>> https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/diffoscope/-/commit/2a361d7dff135d3e832161f587a55a62fcbec9f2
>>
>> Tested fine for me building against that commit.
>>
>> So ... wait again till another release (and maybe find new breakage in
>> the new release), or build against an untagged commit, or pull in a
>> patch from the upstream commit? :)
>
> If you want to get done with this, I'd recommend pulling a patch from
> the upstream commit.  Then when we get to upgrading to the next release
> we can drop such patch.

Apparently waiting was the thing to do... 269 was released with only
that change!

Pushed as c7888f5361fbdbe5182e7dbe90ccc12e2d95d3c3.

live well,
  vagrant

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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