bug#67714: “guix build racket” different from “guix shell racket”

[Simon Tournier]

Hi,

Using Guix aabfddb (Oct 2023),

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix build racket-minimal --no-grafts -d
/gnu/store/hcdvhp36c51f6854mzggacsylkks24jj-racket-minimal-8.10.drv
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix shell racket-minimal --no-grafts --dry-run
substitute: updating substitutes from 'https://ci.guix.gnu.org'... 100.0%
substitute: updating substitutes from 'https://bordeaux.guix.gnu.org'... 100.0%
The following derivations would be built:
  /gnu/store/vy5y76f25ni3kxjfa8x6c3rjgvrvach1-profile.drv
  /gnu/store/jxbm1inf8mj7fvs8z9xxxcrlqv9i1hs7-racket-minimal-8.10.drv
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Well, the derivations are not the same and their output neither.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix build /gnu/store/hcdvhp36c51f6854mzggacsylkks24jj-racket-minimal-8.10.drv
/gnu/store/rvvyiy90dh2dpwn52r84xx4rsvvijz8q-racket-minimal-8.10

$ guix build /gnu/store/jxbm1inf8mj7fvs8z9xxxcrlqv9i1hs7-racket-minimal-8.10.drv
/gnu/store/f2vky2mswm2h7w3jjiw7s28d25kzbmrl-racket-minimal-8.10
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Hum?!  Looking more closely, their builder reads,

>From “guix build”:

  (apply invoke racket
  "/gnu/store/xgaj5m1yhyrc80jhx9djsvg4r7lgrz05-configure-layer.rkt"

>From “guix shell”:

  (apply invoke racket
  "/gnu/store/3k9f2j9arycxd5r6fw1dpidj51pbv41n-configure-layer.rkt"

And the bug is:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ diff \
  /gnu/store/xgaj5m1yhyrc80jhx9djsvg4r7lgrz05-configure-layer.rkt \
  /gnu/store/3k9f2j9arycxd5r6fw1dpidj51pbv41n-configure-layer.rkt
diff: /gnu/store/xgaj5m1yhyrc80jhx9djsvg4r7lgrz05-configure-layer.rkt: No such 
file or directory
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Well, on more more recent revisions, e.g., 06f25a9a85, I am not able to
reproduce.  Other said, I am not able to tell if the bug had been fixed
or if it is not hit.

Cheers,
simon