From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jun 24 15:30:45 2022 Received: (at 56193) by debbugs.gnu.org; 24 Jun 2022 19:30:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43631 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o4p0v-00063E-MJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2022 15:30:45 -0400 Received: from mout-p-201.mailbox.org ([80.241.56.171]:59994) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1o4p0u-00062y-7v for 56193@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 24 Jun 2022 15:30:44 -0400 Received: from smtp2.mailbox.org (smtp2.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-201.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4LV6fN23gpz9sS8 for <56193@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 24 Jun 2022 21:30:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mailbox.org; s=mail20150812; t=1656099036; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type; bh=41SeO7jUg0ICJMNo1s7/VgWCNIN02zIGoPyhIMU8lRQ=; b=ieKoXAjmB7xQinGlCZIG7a4jTB4OEZYlZfx3wsqBOSHguEDy16QJ3c8eZHXGUY2AUGCMFp 6p47CV3xNcy0kF4IhghxWNpyizmicGc+ZhZWCNsV1tY+NNXf8DcE8vdTLU+zMxCY3WjI10 BrC1y0v+gDATxg0XVrNPzxRtZLCVZm0/zq8K5LLA3Dk+sjXTDzwX8QRgKLWfMdTIqLU8JI iZvV8gmt8Pi++1qGHBGq9nWBHrevGmhOALhXOfItC2rWj6WSb8b0l2V0FjTGasM3KDBb06 5DqjzPrvqAfH7XS/ABUccJbo8ocRW76k+eo8TlzdQt6/Bilmm6e8dn6UywxocQ== From: Antero Mejr To: 56193@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 19:10:39 +0000 Message-ID: <871qvdamgi.fsf@mailbox.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-MBO-RS-ID: 1b39b61d4431f430d1c X-MBO-RS-META: 9ehk6qs7y55i7i5g1efw71tkf9xecut7 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4LV6fN23gpz9sS8 X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hi Roman, NetCDF support isn't working in your patch. The software says this: "Unsupported file type (library support not compiled in) To create a CDO application with NetCDF support use: ./configure --with-netcdf= ..." Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [80.241.56.171 listed in list.dnswl.org] 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 56193 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) Hi Roman, NetCDF support isn't working in your patch. The software says this: "Unsupported file type (library support not compiled in) To create a CDO application with NetCDF support use: ./configure --with-netcdf= ..." So it looks like you will have to modify the configure phase a little. I don't think you need the expression `(modules '((guix build utils))` as you are not using that module in your source expression. `licenses` doesn't have to be a list unless cdo is dual-licensed. Please run `guix style` and `guix lint` (using pre-inst-env), which will help make sure the code style follows the Guix style guidelines. Thanks, Antero