bug-guix
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: libjpeg-8 not installable


From: Andreas Enge
Subject: Re: libjpeg-8 not installable
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:28:14 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; )

Am Dienstag, 22. Januar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:

> Commit 5401dd7 does that.

 

It almost works now, thanks! I can do

 

$ guix-build libjpeg-8d

and

$ guix-build libjpeg-9

but

$ guix-build libjpeg

fails:

 

Backtrace:

In ice-9/boot-9.scm:

149: 12 [catch #t #<catch-closure 1e3e9c0> ...]

157: 11 [#<procedure 1dda0f0 ()>]

In unknown file:

?: 10 [catch-closure]

In ice-9/boot-9.scm:

63: 9 [call-with-prompt prompt0 ...]

In ice-9/eval.scm:

407: 8 [eval # #]

In unknown file:

?: 7 [call-with-input-string "(apply (module-ref (resolve-interface '(guix-build)) 'guix-build) (cdr (command-line)))" ...]

In ice-9/command-line.scm:

174: 6 [#<procedure 1d592e0 at ice-9/command-line.scm:169:3 (port)> #<input: string 1c02410>]

In unknown file:

?: 5 [eval (apply (module-ref # #) (cdr #)) #<directory (guile-user) 1e40d80>]

In ice-9/boot-9.scm:

149: 4 [catch srfi-34 #<procedure 22ce560 at guix/ui.scm:71:2 ()> ...]

157: 3 [#<procedure 22d2f00 ()>]

In /usr/local/bin/guix-build:

231: 2 [#<procedure 22c9420 at /usr/local/bin/guix-build:228:2 ()>]

In srfi/srfi-1.scm:

664: 1 [filter-map #<procedure 22c9120 at /usr/local/bin/guix-build:233:33 (expr)> ...]

In /usr/local/bin/guix-build:

210: 0 [#<procedure 22c9120 at /usr/local/bin/guix-build:233:33 (expr)> #]

 

/usr/local/bin/guix-build:210:17: In procedure #<procedure 22c9120 at /usr/local/bin/guix-build:233:33 (expr)>:

/usr/local/bin/guix-build:210:17: Wrong type to apply: (#<package libjpeg-8d gnu/packages/libjpeg.scm:27 20fd0b0>)

 

 

Concerning guix-package,

$ guix-package -i libjpeg

installs version 8d, not the newer 9.

 

Even by exchanging the order of the variables, the older one gets installed. It looks to me as if the first found in alphabetical order is taken, while it should rather be the last one (not in alphabetical order, but lexicographically on the version number).

 

Andreas

 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]