GNU bug report logs - #24026
librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser source code repo

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 24026 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 24026 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser source code repo
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 12:42:57 -0400

The dealii, dealii-openmpi, and librecad packages are now failing
due to a missing dependency:

  svn: E160013: Unable to connect to a repository at URL 'http://muparser.googlecode.com/svn/trunk'
  svn: E160013: '/svn/trunk' path not found

It seems that the muparser developers have switched to github.

      Mark

Message #8 received at 24026 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
Cc: 24026 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24026: librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser
 source code repo
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 02:26:14 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:42:57PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> The dealii, dealii-openmpi, and librecad packages are now failing
> due to a missing dependency:
> 
>   svn: E160013: Unable to connect to a repository at URL 'http://muparser.googlecode.com/svn/trunk'
>   svn: E160013: '/svn/trunk' path not found
> 
> It seems that the muparser developers have switched to github.

Dealii, dealii-openmpi, and librecad build successfully using the 2.2.5
tarball from the new github repo.

The hash of the source has changed, but the version has not. Do you
think this will be a problem? I think that `guix package -u` won't work
correctly.

[0001-gnu-muparser-Update-source-URL.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #11 received at 24026 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 24026 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24026: librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser
 source code repo
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 07:07:25 -0400

Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:42:57PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> The dealii, dealii-openmpi, and librecad packages are now failing
>> due to a missing dependency:
>> 
>>   svn: E160013: Unable to connect to a repository at URL 'http://muparser.googlecode.com/svn/trunk'
>>   svn: E160013: '/svn/trunk' path not found
>> 
>> It seems that the muparser developers have switched to github.
>
> Dealii, dealii-openmpi, and librecad build successfully using the 2.2.5
> tarball from the new github repo.
>
> The hash of the source has changed, but the version has not. Do you
> think this will be a problem? I think that `guix package -u` won't work
> correctly.

Hmm.  It would be good to see the diff between the two "versions" of
2.2.5.  If there's anything substantive in there, then we might want to
bump the version on our behalf.  Otherwise it probably doesn't matter.

What do you think?

> @@ -1796,13 +1796,12 @@ associated functions (eg. contiguous and non-contiguous submatrix views).")
>      (version "2.2.5")
>      (source
>       (origin
> -       (method svn-fetch)
> -       (uri (svn-reference
> -             (url "http://muparser.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/")
> -             (revision 34)))
> +       (method url-fetch)
> +       (uri (string-append "https://github.com/beltoforion/muparser/archive/v"
> +                           version ".tar.gz"))

This 'origin' needs a 'file-name' field.  Otherwise it looks good to me.

    Thanks!
      Mark

Message #14 received at 24026 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
Cc: 24026 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24026: librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser
 source code repo
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:39:45 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 07:07:25AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Hmm.  It would be good to see the diff between the two "versions" of
> 2.2.5.  If there's anything substantive in there, then we might want to
> bump the version on our behalf.  Otherwise it probably doesn't matter.

The difference seem trivial to me. There are fixed typos in comments,
and code changes in 'example1.cpp'. I assume that 'example1.cpp' is
unimportant, but I don't know.

What do you think about the attached patch?

[0001-gnu-muparser-Update-source-URL.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #17 received at 24026 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Bavier <ericbavier <at> openmailbox.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>, 24026 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24026: librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser
 source code repo
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 23:52:00 -0500

On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:39:45 -0400
Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 07:07:25AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> > Hmm.  It would be good to see the diff between the two "versions" of
> > 2.2.5.  If there's anything substantive in there, then we might want to
> > bump the version on our behalf.  Otherwise it probably doesn't matter.  
> 
> The difference seem trivial to me. There are fixed typos in comments,
> and code changes in 'example1.cpp'. I assume that 'example1.cpp' is
> unimportant, but I don't know.
> 
> What do you think about the attached patch?

LGTM.

`~Eric

Message #22 received at 24026-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Eric Bavier <ericbavier <at> openmailbox.org>
Cc: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>, 24026-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#24026: librecad and dealii depend on relocated muparser
 source code repo
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 18:26:16 -0400

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:52:00PM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 12:39:45 -0400
> Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 07:07:25AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> > > Hmm.  It would be good to see the diff between the two "versions" of
> > > 2.2.5.  If there's anything substantive in there, then we might want to
> > > bump the version on our behalf.  Otherwise it probably doesn't matter.  
> > 
> > The difference seem trivial to me. There are fixed typos in comments,
> > and code changes in 'example1.cpp'. I assume that 'example1.cpp' is
> > unimportant, but I don't know.
> > 
> > What do you think about the attached patch?
> 
> LGTM.

Thanks for the review!

Pushed as d7cff656d.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.