Release 1.4.0 progress

OpenSubmitted by Ludovic Courtès.
Details
5 participants
  • Thiago Jung Bauermann
  • Chris Marusich
  • Leo Famulari
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Vagrant Cascadian
Owner
unassigned
Severity
important
Blocked by
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 12 Jan 18:32 +0100
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
87sftsrhbe.fsf@inria.fr
Hello!

This pseudo-bug is here to keep track of bug fixes and patch series we
aim to address for 1.4.0.

To add an issue as “required” for 1.4.0, mark this bug as “blocked” by
this issue (this is ‘C block NUMBER RET’ in debbugs.el).

Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 12 Jan 18:41 +0100
control message for bug #53214
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87k0f4rgv6.fsf@gnu.org
severity 53214 important
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 12 Jan 18:42 +0100
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87h7a8rguu.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 53210
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 13 Jan 11:55 +0100
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87ilun9a6i.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 52828
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 14 Jan 09:27 +0100
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
874k6667t3.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 52891
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 14 Jan 16:39 +0100
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87ee5a499e.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 52752
quit
C
C
Chris Marusich wrote on 16 Jan 02:02 +0100
(no subject)
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
878rvga3wt.fsf@gmail.com
# "guix" package fails to build on aarch64 on master, thus "guix pull"
# will also fail.
block 53214 by 52943

--
Chris

L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 23 Jan 23:30 +0100
control message for bug #53214
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87lez6xexp.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 53480
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 24 Jan 18:05 +0100
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87lez5qd36.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 53506
quit
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 26 Jan 05:18 +0100
(no subject)
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
YfDLfRicGkaiLTJL@jasmine.lan
block 53214 with 53544
block 53214 with 53541
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 26 Jan 05:20 +0100
Re: bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 53214@debbugs.gnu.org)
YfDMF198ZUsJuB9t@jasmine.lan
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 29 Jan 22:11 +0100
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 53214@debbugs.gnu.org)
YfWtfbOcLXrPBhRe@jasmine.lan
The build farm is having trouble building Guix for i686-linux. In fact,
it hasn't successfully completed the 'guix' job in weeks:


And building the guix package does not work on aarch64, also for weeks:


Finally, should we consider retiring the armhf port in 1.4.0? It seems
that we have stopped trying to build for it:

L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 29 Jan 22:11 +0100
(no subject)
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
YfWtnSc39wmufkRL@jasmine.lan
block 53214 with 52943
block 53214 with 53463
V
V
Vagrant Cascadian wrote on 30 Jan 01:22 +0100
Re: bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress
(address . 53214@debbugs.gnu.org)
87y22yqdhe.fsf@ponder
On 2022-01-29, Leo Famulari wrote:
Toggle quote (9 lines)
> The build farm is having trouble building Guix for i686-linux. In fact,
> it hasn't successfully completed the 'guix' job in weeks:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53463
>
> And building the guix package does not work on aarch64, also for weeks:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/52943

It does work on my aarch64 machine as of
1ef7a03a148cf5f83ab1820444f6bd50d8e732d1 and more recently
f8bfb2d85682dcabe56a4b1b0f25d566a0abbd2b, but not sure why it's not
building on the build farm...


Toggle quote (5 lines)
> Finally, should we consider retiring the armhf port in 1.4.0? It seems
> that we have stopped trying to build for it:
>
> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/search?query=guix+spec%3Amaster+system%3Aarmhf-linux

In a similar vein, aarch64 substitutes are in pretty bad shape... and
the architecture as a whole is a bit hard to keep up with; there are
some pretty obscure and difficult to triage bugs here and there.

I'm not sure what the qualities of a release-worthy architecture are,
but aarch64 is definitely suffering badly ever since the core-updates
merge and the merge of the 1.4 branch into master, which required a lot
of rebuilds...


live well,
vagrant
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYKAB0WIQRlgHNhO/zFx+LkXUXcUY/If5cWqgUCYfXaRAAKCRDcUY/If5cW
qhLMAP4p5zbUFRu4PCUfwmpXaAMo7t1zp3BN3FQp8LL4L17hUwEAxZd5o9OrpGj8
E8nNjseV7w8bhvmhQkT+YgbXZ5rWwAA=
=ydnz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

T
T
Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote on 30 Jan 02:00 +0100
(address . 53214@debbugs.gnu.org)
58790588.DlEEdIX8SL@popigai
Hello,

Em sábado, 29 de janeiro de 2022, às 21:22:21 -03, Vagrant Cascadian
escreveu:
Toggle quote (15 lines)
> On 2022-01-29, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > The build farm is having trouble building Guix for i686-linux. In fact,
> > it hasn't successfully completed the 'guix' job in weeks:
> >
> > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53463
> >
> > And building the guix package does not work on aarch64, also for weeks:
> >
> > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/52943
>
> It does work on my aarch64 machine as of
> 1ef7a03a148cf5f83ab1820444f6bd50d8e732d1 and more recently
> f8bfb2d85682dcabe56a4b1b0f25d566a0abbd2b, but not sure why it's not
> building on the build farm...

A couple of weeks ago guixp9 wasn’t doing powerpc64le builds either.
I did a “guix pull && guix upgrade” (which upgraded the version of Cuirass
installed) and restarted the Cuirass worker then things got back on track
again. I don’t know why...

--
Thanks,
Thiago
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 1 Feb 09:34 +0100
(name . Leo Famulari)(address . leo@famulari.name)(address . 53214@debbugs.gnu.org)
87zgnb6l44.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

Toggle quote (5 lines)
> The build farm is having trouble building Guix for i686-linux. In fact,
> it hasn't successfully completed the 'guix' job in weeks:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53463

(This issue title doesn’t mention i686.) I’m looking at it, though a
bit slowly because I’ve been busy with other things:


Toggle quote (4 lines)
> And building the guix package does not work on aarch64, also for weeks:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/52943

Ah, I thought this had been fixed with Chris Marusich’s commits but
apparently not?

Toggle quote (5 lines)
> Finally, should we consider retiring the armhf port in 1.4.0? It seems
> that we have stopped trying to build for it:
>
> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/search?query=guix+spec%3Amaster+system%3Aarmhf-linux

The “armhf-linux” box was unchecked, not sure why. I’ve re-added it and
we’ll see. (For the record, anyone with access to berlin or with a
certificate can do it via the Cuirass web interface.)

Bordeaux.guix does have binaries:

Toggle snippet (27 lines)
$ guix weather -s armhf-linux coreutils guile grep sed
computing 4 package derivations for armhf-linux...
looking for 6 store items on https://ci.guix.gnu.org...
https://ci.guix.gnu.org
0.0% substitutes available (0 out of 6)
unknown substitute sizes
0.0 MiB on disk (uncompressed)
0.042 seconds per request (0.2 seconds in total)
23.6 requests per second

0.0% (0 out of 6) of the missing items are queued
at least 1,000 queued builds
aarch64-linux: 1000 (100.0%)
build rate: 17.64 builds per hour
i686-linux: 4.74 builds per hour
x86_64-linux: 9.23 builds per hour
powerpc64le-linux: 3.69 builds per hour
looking for 6 store items on https://bordeaux.guix.gnu.org...
https://bordeaux.guix.gnu.org
100.0% substitutes available (6 out of 6)
23.1 MiB of nars (compressed)
113.8 MiB on disk (uncompressed)
0.034 seconds per request (0.1 seconds in total)
29.3 requests per second
(continuous integration information unavailable)

Overall it’s not a great situation to be in, but I think we should be
able to address it. Usually I think it’s safer to merge ‘core-updates’
only after “make assert-binaries-available” passes.

Thanks,
Ludo’.
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 3 Feb 18:44 +0100
(no subject)
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
YfwUfbmGj1HWLFG7@jasmine.lan
block 53214 with 49508
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 3 Feb 18:46 +0100
Re: bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 53214@debbugs.gnu.org)
YfwVE5SQEByURekE@jasmine.lan
I suggest we fix #49508 "Implement --allow-insecure-transport for `guix
pull`" before the next release:

L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 3 Feb 19:39 +0100
(no subject)
(name . GNU bug tracker automated control server)(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
YfwhW7myCtO8IyKu@jasmine.lan
block 53214 with 53706
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 4 Feb 18:04 +0100
(name . GNU bug tracker automated control server)(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
Yf1crbaC6auUKuqy@jasmine.lan
block 53214 with 53194
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 15 Feb 16:00 +0100
control message for bug #53214
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87mtisyy21.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 54003
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 2 Mar 11:39 +0100
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87fso04p08.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 54055
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 1 Apr 13:44 +0200
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
8735ixni3b.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 54666
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 11 May 11:27 +0200
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87mtfoo1w1.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 55360
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 11 May 15:42 +0200
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87bkw4nq1v.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 55361
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 11 May 22:11 +0200
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87wnern81q.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 53594
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote 6 days ago
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87ee0nx4ys.fsf@gnu.org
block 53214 by 55549
quit
?