Simon Tournier <[email protected]> skribis: > Hi, > > For more details, see: > > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/44112 > > On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 at 13:11, Simon Tournier <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> [2] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583 >> >> This is now closed. Well, using Guix b17268b, I get: >> >> $ diff -r --no-dereference >> /gnu/store/nfklpxiwjp36rpsfgr4jkr62cwb64ylw-sbcl-2.5.2-doc{,-check} >> Binary files >> /gnu/store/nfklpxiwjp36rpsfgr4jkr62cwb64ylw-sbcl-2.5.2-doc/share/doc/sbcl/sbcl.pdf >> and >> /gnu/store/nfklpxiwjp36rpsfgr4jkr62cwb64ylw-sbcl-2.5.2-doc-check/share/doc/sbcl/sbcl.pdf >> differ >> >> So the package ’sbcl’ is not fully reproducible yet. > > Please note that SBCL the package 2.6.2 is still not reproducible: > > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/pulls/6805#issuecomment-12251049 > >> However, the >> initial report seems fixed. Therefore, I propose to close. And we can >> open another issue if or when we will be annoyed by the unreproducible >> PDF. WDYT? > > What appears to you the more adequate next actionable step? > > Cheers, > simon
Hi. We could close this issue and open a new one about the reproducilbility of the documentation PDF file.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
