tests: Add missing test data.
authorRicardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Tue, 12 May 2020 12:03:59 +0000 (14:03 +0200)
committerRicardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Tue, 12 May 2020 12:03:59 +0000 (14:03 +0200)
tests/data/spool/archive/95/26095.log [new file with mode: 0644]
tests/data/spool/db-h/99/33299.log [new file with mode: 0644]

diff --git a/tests/data/spool/archive/95/26095.log b/tests/data/spool/archive/95/26095.log
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..0ce0092
--- /dev/null
@@ -0,0 +1,6099 @@
+\ 6
+<!-- request_addr: guix-patches@gnu.org -->
+<!-- time:1489480202 -->
+<strong>Report forwarded</strong>
+to <code>guix-patches@gnu.org</code>:<br>
+<code>bug#26095</code>; Package <code>guix-patches</code>.
+\ 3
+\ 2
+guix-patches@gnu.org
+\ 5
+X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org
+Subject: bug#26095: R: do not build recommended packages
+Resent-From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@example.com>
+Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
+Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org
+Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:30:02 +0000
+Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26095.B.14894801591162@debbugs.gnu.org>
+Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org
+X-GNU-PR-Message: report 26095
+X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches
+X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
+To: 26095@debbugs.gnu.org
+X-Debbugs-Original-To: guix-patches@gnu.org
+Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.14894801591162
+          (code B ref -1); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:30:02 +0000
+Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Mar 2017 08:29:19 +0000
+Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54721 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
+       by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
+       (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
+       id 1cnhpW-0000Ig-O5
+       for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:18 -0400
+Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54571)
+ by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
+ (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpV-0000IT-2c
+ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:17 -0400
+Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
+ (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpO-00014S-RV
+ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:11 -0400
+X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
+X-Spam-Level: 
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=disabled
+ version=3.3.2
+Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:46586)
+ by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
+ (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpO-00014O-PH
+ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:10 -0400
+Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45510)
+ by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
+ (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpM-0005M2-GH
+ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:10 -0400
+Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
+ (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpH-00011R-KO
+ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:08 -0400
+Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21020)
+ by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
+ (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpH-00010f-E4
+ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:03 -0400
+Received: from localhost (xd933fe09.dyn.telefonica.de [217.51.254.9]) by
+ mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1489480138371144.2514938811363;
+ Tue, 14 Mar 2017 01:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
+User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.1.1
+From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@example.com>
+X-URL: https://example.com
+X-PGP-Key: https://example.com/rekado.pubkey
+X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
+Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:28:55 +0100
+Message-ID: <87h92w1cu0.fsf@example.com>
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
+X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy]
+X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x
+X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11
+X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
+X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
+ <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
+List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org>
+List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
+ <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
+Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org
+Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
+X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
+
+This relates to bug 25598 “R packages are not bit-reproducible”.  R
+itself does not build reproducibly.  One of the reasons is that it
+includes recommended packages that are built in a random temporary
+directory.  The build paths for each of these packages is then embedded
+in the packages’ “paths.rds” files.
+
+We don’t have this problem when building the packages with the
+“r-build-system” like any other R package.
+
+This patch set adds package expressions for each of the recommended
+packages, disables building of recommended packages, and adds some of
+these packages to those R packages that need them.
+
+I’ve successfully rebuilt all R packages to make sure that these changes
+don’t break anything.
+
+I also have an unpolished patch to fix bug 25598, but it depends on this
+patch set.
+
+--
+Ricardo
+
+GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
+https://example.com
+
+
+
+
+\ 3
+\ 6
+<!-- request_addr: Ricardo Wurmus &lt;rekado@example.com&gt; -->
+<!-- time:1489480202 -->
+<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong>
+to <code>Ricardo Wurmus &lt;rekado@example.com&gt;</code>:<br>
+New bug report received and forwarded.  Copy sent to <code>guix-patches@gnu.org</code>.
+\ 3
+\ 2
+-t
+\ 5
+Content-Disposition: inline
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
+X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org
+From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
+To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@example.com>
+Subject: bug#26095: Acknowledgement (R: do not build recommended packages)
+Message-ID: <handler.26095.B.14894801591162.ack@debbugs.gnu.org>
+References: <87h92w1cu0.fsf@example.com>
+X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 26095
+X-Gnu-PR-Package: guix-patches
+Reply-To: 26095@debbugs.gnu.org
+Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 08:30:02 +0000
+
+Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.
+
+This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
+has been received.
+
+Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
+interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.
+
+Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
+ guix-patches@gnu.org
+
+If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
+send it to 26095@debbugs.gnu.org.
+
+Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@gnu.org unless you wish
+to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.
+
+--=20
+26095: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D26095
+GNU Bug Tracking System
+Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
+
+\ 3
+\a
+Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Mar 2017 08:29:19 +0000
+From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Mar 14 04:29:18 2017
+Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54721 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
+       by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
+       (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
+       id 1cnhpW-0000Ig-O5
+       for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:18 -0400
+Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54571)
+ by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
+ (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpV-0000IT-2c
+ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:17 -0400
+Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
+ (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpO-00014S-RV
+ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:11 -0400
+X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
+X-Spam-Level: 
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40 autolearn=disabled
+ version=3.3.2
+Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:46586)
+ by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
+ (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpO-00014O-PH
+ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:10 -0400
+Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45510)
+ by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
+ (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpM-0005M2-GH
+ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:10 -0400
+Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
+ (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpH-00011R-KO
+ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:08 -0400
+Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21020)
+ by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
+ (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <rekado@example.com>) id 1cnhpH-00010f-E4
+ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Mar 2017 04:29:03 -0400
+Received: from localhost (xd933fe09.dyn.telefonica.de [217.51.254.9]) by
+ mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1489480138371144.2514938811363;
+ Tue, 14 Mar 2017 01:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
+User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.1.1
+From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@example.com>
+To: guix-patches@gnu.org
+Subject: R: do not build recommended packages
+X-URL: https://example.com
+X-PGP-Key: https://example.com/rekado.pubkey
+X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
+Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 09:28:55 +0100
+Message-ID: <87h92w1cu0.fsf@example.com>
+MIME-Version: 1.0
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
+Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
+X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy]
+X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x
+X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11
+X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
+X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
+X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
+Precedence: list
+List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
+ <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
+List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
+List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org>
+List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
+List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
+ <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
+Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org
+Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
+X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----)
+
+This relates to bug 25598 “R packages are not bit-reproducible”.  R
+itself does not build reproducibly.  One of the reasons is that it
+includes recommended packages that are built in a random temporary
+directory.  The build paths for each of these packages is then embedded
+in the packages’ “paths.rds” files.
+
+We don’t have this problem when building the packages with the
+“r-build-system” like any other R package.
+
+This patch set adds package expressions for each of the recommended
+packages, disables building of recommended packages, and adds some of
+these packages to those R packages that need them.
+
+I’ve successfully rebuilt all R packages to make sure that these changes
+don’t break anything.
+
+I also have an unpolished patch to fix bug 25598, but it depends on this
+patch set.
+
+--
+Ricardo
+
+GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
+https://example.com
+
+
+
+
+\ 3