[bug#34056] [PATCH] core-updates -- gnu: python2: Fix test flags.

[Christopher Baines]

Eric Bavier <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 22:56:27 +0000
> Christopher Baines <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> address@hidden writes:
>>
>> > From: Eric Bavier <address@hidden>
>> >
>> > * gnu/packages/python.scm (python-2.7)[arguments]: 'EXTRATESTOPTS' ->
>> > 'TESTOPTS'.  This overrides the default '-l' argument for memory leak 
>> > checks
>> > which is not compatible with the -j for parallelism.
>> > ---
>> >  gnu/packages/python.scm | 2 +-
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/python.scm b/gnu/packages/python.scm
>> > index 9b43f465cc..dffded738d 100644
>> > --- a/gnu/packages/python.scm
>> > +++ b/gnu/packages/python.scm
>> > @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@
>> >                              (assoc-ref %outputs "out") "/lib"))
>> >         ;; With no -j argument tests use all available cpus, so provide 
>> > one.
>> >         #:make-flags
>> > -       (list (format #f "EXTRATESTOPTS=-j~d" (parallel-job-count)))
>> > +       (list (format #f "TESTOPTS=-j~d" (parallel-job-count)))
>> >
>> >          #:modules ((ice-9 ftw) (ice-9 match)
>> >                     (guix build utils) (guix build gnu-build-system))
>>
>> Hey Eric,
>>
>> I've also been looking at some Python 2 things on core-updates today,
>> trying to get the linkchecker package building again.
>>
>> I've just pushed a slightly different patch, but to this effect to
>> core-updates, and only just seen this message, sorry about that.
>
> Not a problem.
>
>> Thanks for looking at it though, this approach is probably neater, as I
>> used substitute* instead.
>
> Would you like to keep your patch, or apply this one instead?

I'm quite happy to switch to this approach. I don't know whether the
best way to do that is to switch out the patches by force-pushing to
core-updates, or to just apply your patch on top though...

Thanks,

Chris

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature