Subject: Re: bug#71024: Update diffoscope to 268

From: Vagrant Cascadian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 15:33:22 -0700

On 2024-05-25, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian <[email-masked]> writes:
>> On 2024-05-21, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>>> Vagrant Cascadian <[email-masked]> writes:
>>>> On 2024-05-20, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-20, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>>>>>> [email-masked] writes:
>>>>>>> From: Vagrant Cascadian <[email-masked]>
>>>>> Or fixing diffoscope to work with the older xz version in master
>>>>> (5.2.x?) that guix is already using, which, now that I have spelled out
>>>>> all of the above, seems possibly a much better idea!
...
>> Well, version 268 was just released, which fixes the xz issue ... but
>> introduces a test failure for 7z... which is worked around in the
>> attached patch.
...
>> +              (substitute* "tests/comparators/test_sevenz.py"
>> +                ((", skip_unless_tool_is_at_least") ", skip_unless_tool_is_at_least, skip_unless_tool_is_at_most")
>> +                (("@skip_unless_tool_is_at_least") "@skip_unless_tool_is_at_most(\"7z\", sevenz_version, \"63\")\n@skip_unless_tool_is_at_least"))))
>
> That would LGTM, if it didn't so severely bust our 80 maximum column
> width convention :-).  Would you mind editing it into conformance?

Oops. must not have guix linted that one!

Well, again, upstream has fixed it even better:

  https://salsa.debian.org/reproducible-builds/diffoscope/-/commit/2a361d7dff135d3e832161f587a55a62fcbec9f2

Tested fine for me building against that commit.

So ... wait again till another release (and maybe find new breakage in
the new release), or build against an untagged commit, or pull in a
patch from the upstream commit? :)

live well,
  vagrant