guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU Guix 1.3.0rc2 available for testing!


From: Maxim Cournoyer
Subject: Re: GNU Guix 1.3.0rc2 available for testing!
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 12:07:14 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)

Hi Chris!

Sorry for the delayed answer.

Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> A second RC for the upcoming 1.3.0 release is now available for testing:
>
> Thank you for preparing it!
>
> I tested the binary installation using the guix-install.sh script for
> 1.3.0 (not the rc2 candidate, but the actual 1.3.0 release, which I
> noticed was on the FTP server already).  I tested on powerpc64le-linux
> and found no major issues; it worked as expected.

Good :-).

> I did "guix pull" and "guix build hello".  To my surprise, I received a
> substitute:
>
> marusich@guixtestbed:~$ guix build hello
> substitute: updating substitutes from 'https://ci.guix.gnu.org'... 100.0%
> 0.1 MB will be downloaded:
>    /gnu/store/zcs3cj0mqixwng2ldf92haab2vkpsicb-hello-2.10
> substituting /gnu/store/zcs3cj0mqixwng2ldf92haab2vkpsicb-hello-2.10...
> downloading from 
> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/nar/lzip/zcs3cj0mqixwng2ldf92haab2vkpsicb-hello-2.10 
> ...
>  hello-2.10  52KiB                    239KiB/s 00:00 [##################] 
> 100.0%
> /gnu/store/zcs3cj0mqixwng2ldf92haab2vkpsicb-hello-2.10
>
> I guess something is building powerpc64le-linux substitutes?  I had
> thought no substitutes would be available, but certainly it is not a
> problem if substitutes are being built for powerpc64le-linux already.

The graciously provided POWER9 VM from OSUOSL is not yet hooked to the
CI (as a Cuirass worker), as you can see here [0].  I'm guessing the
little substitutes available are a side-effect of my initial testing
from Berlin directly, which can offload manually started builds to the
offload machines.

> I tried building from source on Debian 10 buster ppc64el.  It succeeded,
> but "make check" reported one test failure.  It was in tests/go.scm:
>
> test-name: go-module->guix-package
> location: /home/marusich/guix-1.3.0/tests/go.scm:254
> source:
> + (test-equal
> +   "go-module->guix-package"
> +   '(package
> +      (name "go-github-com-go-check-check")
> +      (version "0.0.0-20201130134442-10cb98267c6c")
> +      (source
> +        (origin
> +          (method git-fetch)
> +          (uri (git-reference
> +                 (url "https://github.com/go-check/check";)
> +                 (commit (go-version->git-ref version))))
> +          (file-name (git-file-name name version))
> +          (sha256
> +            (base32
> +              "0sjjj9z1dhilhpc8pq4154czrb79z9cm044jvn75kxcjv6v5l2m5"))))
> +      (build-system go-build-system)
> +      (arguments
> +        '(#:import-path "github.com/go-check/check"))
> +      (propagated-inputs
> +        `(("go-github-com-kr-pretty"
> +           ,go-github-com-kr-pretty)))
> +      (home-page "https://github.com/go-check/check";)
> +      (synopsis "Instructions")
> +      (description
> +        "Package check is a rich testing extension for Go's testing 
> package.")
> +      (license license:bsd-2))
> +   (call-with-temporary-directory
> +     (lambda (checkout)
> +       (mock ((web client)
> +              http-get
> +              (mock-http-get fixtures-go-check-test))
> +             (mock ((guix http-client)
> +                    http-fetch
> +                    (mock-http-fetch fixtures-go-check-test))
> +                   (mock ((guix git)
> +                          update-cached-checkout
> +                          (lambda* (url #:key ref)
> +                            (values
> +                              checkout
> +                              (nix-base32-string->bytevector
> +                                
> "0sjjj9z1dhilhpc8pq4154czrb79z9cm044jvn75kxcjv6v5l2m5")
> +                              #f)))
> +                         (go-module->guix-package
> +                           "github.com/go-check/check")))))))
> expected-value: (package (name "go-github-com-go-check-check") (version 
> "0.0.0-20201130134442-10cb98267c6c") (source (origin (method git-fetch) (uri 
> (git-reference (url "https://github.com/go-check/check";) (commit 
> (go-version->git-ref version)))) (file-name (git-file-name name version)) 
> (sha256 (base32 "0sjjj9z1dhilhpc8pq4154czrb79z9cm044jvn75kxcjv6v5l2m5")))) 
> (build-system go-build-system) (arguments (quote (#:import-path 
> "github.com/go-check/check"))) (propagated-inputs (quasiquote 
> (("go-github-com-kr-pretty" (unquote go-github-com-kr-pretty))))) (home-page 
> "https://github.com/go-check/check";) (synopsis "Instructions") (description 
> "Package check is a rich testing extension for Go's testing package.") 
> (license license:bsd-2))
> actual-value: #f
> actual-error:
> + (wrong-number-of-args
> +   #f
> +   "Wrong number of arguments to ~A"
> +   (#<procedure html->sxml-0nf (input)>)
> +   #f)
> result: FAIL

The go importer depends on a recent version of guile-lib (0.2.7), which
added a new #:strict argument to the HTML parser.  We should probably
skip the test depending on the already available HAVE_GUILE_LIB Automake
conditional, like so:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
modified   Makefile.am
@@ -457,7 +457,6 @@ SCM_TESTS =                                 \
   tests/git-authenticate.scm                   \
   tests/glob.scm                               \
   tests/gnu-maintenance.scm                    \
-  tests/go.scm                                 \
   tests/grafts.scm                             \
   tests/graph.scm                              \
   tests/gremlin.scm                            \
@@ -505,6 +504,10 @@ SCM_TESTS =                                        \
   tests/uuid.scm                               \
   tests/workers.scm
 
+if HAVE_GUILE_LIB
+SCM_TESTS += tests/go.scm
+endif
+
 if BUILD_DAEMON_OFFLOAD
 SCM_TESTS  += tests/offload.scm
 else
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Could you give the above a try?  Feel free to commit it if it works as
expected.

Thank you,

Maxim



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]