Patch file names too long

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
2 participants
  • Brett Gilio
  • Ludovic Courtès
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Ludovic Courtès
Severity
normal
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 1 Oct 2020 12:26
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
87a6x6utrj.fsf@gnu.org
There are several patch file names that are too long for ‘tar’, as
reported during ‘make dist’:

Toggle snippet (7 lines)
tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/ocaml-bisect-fix-camlp4-in-another-directory.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-signature-of-multiplyCheckOverflow.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python2-pygobject-2-gi-info-type-error-domain.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-division-by-zero-BlockCodec-runPull.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python-robotframework-honor-source-date-epoch.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita

‘guix lint’ reports it as well, but apparently this is easily
overlooked.

Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 1 Oct 2020 14:35
control message for bug #43738
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
871riit98n.fsf@gnu.org
tags 43738 + easy
quit
B
B
Brett Gilio wrote on 2 Oct 2020 04:36
Re: bug#43738: Patch file names too long
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 43738@debbugs.gnu.org)
87tuvdxsjn.fsf@debian
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (14 lines)
> There are several patch file names that are too long for ‘tar’, as
> reported during ‘make dist’:
>
> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/ocaml-bisect-fix-camlp4-in-another-directory.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-signature-of-multiplyCheckOverflow.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python2-pygobject-2-gi-info-type-error-domain.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-division-by-zero-BlockCodec-runPull.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python-robotframework-honor-source-date-epoch.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
>
> ‘guix lint’ reports it as well, but apparently this is easily
> overlooked.
>
> Ludo’.

Does it matter that this is coming from a dirty working tree? Maybe not.

Brett Gilio
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 3 Oct 2020 11:03
(name . Brett Gilio)(address . brettg@gnu.org)(address . 43738@debbugs.gnu.org)
87tuvbheb8.fsf@gnu.org
Brett Gilio <brettg@gnu.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (18 lines)
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> There are several patch file names that are too long for ‘tar’, as
>> reported during ‘make dist’:
>>
>> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/ocaml-bisect-fix-camlp4-in-another-directory.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
>> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-signature-of-multiplyCheckOverflow.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
>> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python2-pygobject-2-gi-info-type-error-domain.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
>> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-division-by-zero-BlockCodec-runPull.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
>> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python-robotframework-honor-source-date-epoch.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
>>
>> ‘guix lint’ reports it as well, but apparently this is easily
>> overlooked.
>>
>> Ludo’.
>
> Does it matter that this is coming from a dirty working tree? Maybe not.

Nope, it doesn’t matter.

Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 10 Nov 2020 18:01
(address . 43738-done@debbugs.gnu.org)
87h7pxno1r.fsf@gnu.org
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (9 lines)
> There are several patch file names that are too long for ‘tar’, as
> reported during ‘make dist’:
>
> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/ocaml-bisect-fix-camlp4-in-another-directory.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-signature-of-multiplyCheckOverflow.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python2-pygobject-2-gi-info-type-error-domain.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-division-by-zero-BlockCodec-runPull.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita
> tar: guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python-robotframework-honor-source-date-epoch.patch dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ?utita

Fixed by:

8515ea12d2 gnu: audiofile: Shorten patch file names.
74361d3ee8 gnu: python2-pygobject@2: Shorten patch file name.
f161bd2cd7 gnu: Remove unused patch.
ab96f929c6 gnu: python-robotframework: Shorten patch file name.

Ludo’.
Closed
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 43738@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 43738
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch