Brett Gilio <bre...@gnu.org> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: > >> There are several patch file names that are too long for ‘tar’, as >> reported during ‘make dist’: >> >> tar: >> guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/ocaml-bisect-fix-camlp4-in-another-directory.patch >> dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ŝutita >> tar: >> guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-signature-of-multiplyCheckOverflow.patch >> dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ŝutita >> tar: >> guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python2-pygobject-2-gi-info-type-error-domain.patch >> dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ŝutita >> tar: >> guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/audiofile-division-by-zero-BlockCodec-runPull.patch >> dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ŝutita >> tar: >> guix-1.0.1.22624-c258f1-dirty/gnu/packages/patches/python-robotframework-honor-source-date-epoch.patch >> dosiernomo tro longas (maks 99); ne ŝutita >> >> ‘guix lint’ reports it as well, but apparently this is easily >> overlooked. >> >> Ludo’. > > Does it matter that this is coming from a dirty working tree? Maybe not.
Nope, it doesn’t matter. Ludo’.
