From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 22 11:44:19 2022 Received: (at 53594) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2022 15:44:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54556 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nhvSF-0004ny-Jb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:44:19 -0400 Received: from jpoiret.xyz ([206.189.101.64]:45636) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nhvSD-0004nr-UM for 53594@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 11:44:18 -0400 Received: from authenticated-user (jpoiret.xyz [206.189.101.64]) by jpoiret.xyz (Postfix) with ESMTPA id CD0C01851E0; Fri, 22 Apr 2022 15:44:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jpoiret.xyz; s=dkim; t=1650642256; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=CM8dcnlXf1PqLVkC1wxjEv1ZLCpFBGh8bCmCFIKbkDI=; b=R6xl3jHnmxYG94LguJeShqv/d2BNthOEc6tm3tHj5bn+0UGfPdWFPSdLqZM1LyuUBdy6TA I66kxM+WUf1koTiPY1FvBaY0/+Hy2/pwLrBUFrupw4WzE9/TUbqYqJs4pUk8Bo7BDb/ELQ iGCLg0m/AUEbcI9SV5A8rmVJG7XK7VPuKV4bEoXlkv82XG5bQZCQ19lB33yCo5tTHxOiNl 9oLkPq22qce05vkvAyxe6eznc96jw0bc1fdErdLtlGYEZlxIDphfEOCDKr6YzNBmdfqpZa oOGdTEF7alOatua9UY6X6ndSM3sEgaLQwwfi3K9bSnkjAeM8nmPPANbhOwPx5w== From: Josselin Poiret To: "Guu, Jin-Cheng" , Mathieu Othacehe Subject: Re: bug#53594: no matching pattern # References: <874k5hch4d.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 17:44:15 +0200 Message-ID: <87k0bh3yy8.fsf@jpoiret.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Authentication-Results: jpoiret.xyz; auth=pass smtp.auth=jpoiret@jpoiret.xyz smtp.mailfrom=dev@jpoiret.xyz X-Spamd-Bar: / X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hello everyone, Someone reported the exact same issue today on IRC [1], with polkit being the culprit. With a bigger backtrace, the match error happens at line 901 in guix/gexp.scm, in the match inside the return par [...] Content analysis details: (2.1 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.6 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: jpoiret.xyz (xyz)] 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 53594 Cc: 53594@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hello everyone, Someone reported the exact same issue today on IRC [1], with polkit being the culprit. With a bigger backtrace, the match error happens at line 901 in guix/gexp.scm, in the match inside the return par [...] Content analysis details: (2.1 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.6 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: jpoiret.xyz (xyz)] 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD -0.0 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE No description available. -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager Hello everyone, Someone reported the exact same issue today on IRC [1], with polkit being the culprit. With a bigger backtrace, the match error happens at line 901 in guix/gexp.scm, in the match inside the return part of lower-inputs. This suggests that lower-object doesn't manage to return a derivation but only the polkit package. I suspect that this has to do with the complex polkit package interactions that we have, with polkit being an identifier syntax for either polkit-mozjs or polkit-duktape, with duktape package/inherit'ing polkit-mozjs with is itself replaced by polkit-mozjs/fixed. Maybe there's an interaction with the caching as well, while grafting and looping? I've tried to reproduce this locally by building a gexp that has either polkit, polkit-duktape or polkit-mozjs as an input, enabling or disabling fallback or grafting, to no avail. Maybe someone else has another idea? [1] https://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2022-04-22.log#154402 Best, -- Josselin Poiret