On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 09:36:53PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Leo Famulari <[email protected]> skribis: > > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 12:24:45PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 01, 2016 at 02:36:24PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> > Leo Famulari <[email protected]> skribis: > >> > > >> > > From bf1f2a1c3621ba93ec99711ec78a79663acb6e82 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > >> > > Message-Id: > >> > > <bf1f2a1c3621ba93ec99711ec78a79663acb6e82.1456734966.git....@famulari.name> > >> > > From: Leo Famulari <[email protected]> > >> > > Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:23:43 -0500 > >> > > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] gnu: ilmbase: Add patches to fix build on i686. > >> > > > >> > > Fixes <http://bugs.gnu.org/22049>. > >> > > > >> > > * gnu/packages/patches/ilmbase-testBox.patch, > >> > > gnu/packages/patches/ilmbase-testBoxAlgo.patch: New files. > >> > > * gnu-system.am (dist_patch_DATA): Add them. > >> > > * gnu/packages/graphics.scm (ilmbase)[native-inputs]: Add patch/testBox > >> > > and patch/testBoxAlgo. > >> > > [arguments]: Add 'patch-for-i686' phase. > >> > > >> > Cool! > >> > > >> > I think it’d be reasonable to squash both patches in one file, and to > >> > apply it unconditionally. WDYT? > >> > >> Sure, I'll send an updated patch. > > > > Attached. > > > > [...] > > >> > So I gather upgrading to IlmBase 2.0.1 is not an option? > >> > >> 2.0.1 would be a downgrade for us; we are on 2.2.0. I did try it without > >> success. > > Oops, sorry. :-) > > > From 2f895108a3f476038b82e03645ee7f51e4ee1675 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Leo Famulari <[email protected]> > > Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 02:23:43 -0500 > > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: ilmbase: Add patch to fix build on i686. > > > > Fixes <http://bugs.gnu.org/22049>. > > > > * gnu/packages/patches/ilmbase-fix-tests.patch: New file. > > * gnu-system.am (dist_patch_DATA): Add it. > > * gnu/packages/graphics.scm (ilmbase)[source]: Add patch. > > Perfect, thanks again!
Pushed as 5e8276dcf4e3a, and closing. > > Ludo’.
