Re: What to do when udpating a package ?

[Edouard Klein]

zimoun writes:

> Dear Edouard,
>
> In complement to what Julien said. :-)
>
>
> On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 13:36, Edouard Klein <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> - Some packages would not build, for reasons unrelated to the update of
>>   python-prompt-toolkit. Namely:
>>   - fdroidserver@1.1.1  will not build because of a failure of
>>   python-apache-libcloud@2.4.0
>>   - python-matplotlib-documentation@3.1.2 and
>>   python-ipython-documentation@7.9.0 will not build because of a failure
>>   of texlive-union-51265
>>   - python-rpy2@3.0.4-1.19868a8 would not build
>>   All those failure also happen on origin/master on my machine, and are
>>   therefore unrelated to the changes I made.
>>   --> Is any failure to build expected on origin/master ?
>
> No, it is not expected.
> As Forrest Gump says: "It happens, sometimes." :-)
>

I was worried I had misconfigured my local version of guix.

>
>>   --> If so, where can I check the official build success/fail status of
>>       a package ?
>
> Well, the link is ci.guix.gnu.org then top right, for example the query:
>
>    spec:guix-master system:x86_64-linux python-apache-libcloud
>
> But personally I do not always understand what Cuirass reports.
> Therefore, I prefer to use data.guix.gnu.org then for example:
>
> http://data.guix.gnu.org/repository/1/branch/master/package/fdroidserver/output-history
>
> I do not know the correct way to reach this webpage so I type directly
> the URL -- well to be exact, I have an Emacs interactive function so I
> type M-x my/guix-data fdroidserver RET and it opens the above webpage.
>
> Then I click to one "Failed dependency" and I arrive to:
>
> http://data.guix.gnu.org/build-server/1/build?derivation_file_name=/gnu/store/ccrk10g4vpzf6nk7x8j1a36s0b4z0w2l-fdroidserver-1.1.1.drv
>
> and I can click to the failing derivation and then I arrive to
> ci.guix.gnu.org and I can give a look to the raw log.
>
I could not find the link to the raw log, but having access to the
"official" build status is a huge relief, as I can stop worrying that
the build failure is my fault. This is exactly what I was looking for.
Thank you !


>
> Well, I do not know if it is the correct way, but it is how I am doing
> time to time to see what happens on the build farm.  Be careful of
> your current Guix version and the Guix version on ci you are
> examining.
>
>
>>   --> If not, how can I check that my master version of guix is correct
>>        and is building everything it should build ?
>
> I do not understand what you mean.
> "guix weather" to see if the substitute is available.
> "guix challenge" to compare your own builds to the builds on substitutes.
>
>

I was asking how to make sure that my local guix is OK (I had trouble
getting it to work).

>>   --> In any case, how can I check that my change does not negatively
>>        affect these packages ?
>
> Which packages?  The ones which do not currently build?

Yeah, I'm worried maybe once the current build failure cause is addressed, my
change will prevent them from building.

>
>
>> - Some of the failing-in-master packages do not depend directly on
>>   python-prompt toolkit, but they depend on a package that depends on
>>   etc.
>>   e.g. fdroidserver@1.1.1 depends on python-androguard@3.2.1 which
>>   depends on python-ipython@7.9.0.
>>   --> fdroidserver@1.1.1 fails to build for reasons unrelated to
>>   python-prompt-toolkit, but both python-androguard@3.2.1 and
>>   python-ipython@7.9.0. both build with the new version of
>>   python-prompt-toolkit. Would I be correct in assuming that
>>   frdoidserver would build with the new version ? I assume not, but I
>>   would like to be sure
>
> I miss something about what depends on what. :-)
> I do not have really the graph under my eyes. ;-)
>
>
>> - python-iml@0.6.2 does not build with prompt-toolkit in version 3 (the
>>   version is explicitly stated as >=2.0 and <2.1 in the Python files), but
>>   when I add prompt-toolkit-2 to its propagated-inputs, it does.
>>   Given that python-ipython has prompt-toolkit (implicitly in version
>>   3) installed in its propagated inputs, this means that any environment
>>   with python-iml will have prompt-toolkit in both its version 2 and 3
>>   installed at the same time. I feel uneasy about this.
>>   --> Is this a problem ?
>>   --> Should I just trust that if it builds, then everything is
>>       allright ?
>
> No, it should pass the tests too.  If there is tests. :-)
> If not, you should install it locally and try it.

Yeah, installing does not work :D See my answer to Julien

> Because the package could build but should have runtime issues.
>
>
>>   --> Is there a way to check the graph to make the edges as
>>       sparse as possible (i.e. remove as many edges as possible without
>>       changing the reachability) ? Would this be something we want ?
>>       According to me it would because it would make the packages
>>       definitions shorter and the computations on the graph faster, but I'm
>>       not sure.
>
> What do you mean by "reachability"?
> There is a new feature to "guix graph": '--path'.  You can find the
> shortest path from one package to another, e.g.,
>
>   guix graph --path guix-jupyter python
>
> What do you mean by "the edges as sparse as possible"?
>
>
So if A depends on B and C, and B also depends on C, which is preferable
as far as explicit input declarations in the packages code go:
--
A->B;
B->C;
-- or
A->B;
A->C;
B->C;
--
The reachability (in the graph theoretical sense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reachability) is the same, but one graph
has one edge less and is thus "minimal". If I understood Julien correctly he 
seems to think
that the fully connected case is better (easier maintainability).


>
> All the best,
> simon

Thank you for your time,

Cheers,

Edouard.