Subject: bug#26208: closed (Re: bug#26208: core-updates: Guix itself fails to build!)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 22:47:01 +0000

Your bug report

#26208: core-updates: Guix itself fails to build!

which was filed against the guix package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
26208: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=26208
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#26208: core-updates: Guix itself fails to build!
From: [email-masked] (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Leo Famulari <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:46:02 +0100
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Leo Famulari <[email-masked]> skribis:

> Guix is failing to build on core-updates for x86_64-linux:
>
> https://hydra.gnu.org/job/gnu/core-updates/guix-0.12.0-5.1162.x86_64-linux

Works for me on the first try!  :-)

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ git describe
v0.12.0-2430-g77ab6983a
$ ./pre-inst-env guix build guix
/gnu/store/0z3hcfmmhdl23llflk0br44lhfcr1fis-guix-0.12.0-6.73a4
$ guix hash -r /gnu/store/0z3hcfmmhdl23llflk0br44lhfcr1fis-guix-0.12.0-6.73a4
1rz8g0hwg7ihjmph9hqr0aql83czw5zwnf4xcjg9qqhf8jd5md35
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

The same derivation now builds fine on hydra.  I suspect that was a
transient error (the parallel build stuff…).

Ludo’.

Subject: core-updates: Guix itself fails to build!
From: Leo Famulari <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 14:41:00 -0400
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Guix is failing to build on core-updates for x86_64-linux:

https://hydra.gnu.org/job/gnu/core-updates/guix-0.12.0-5.1162.x86_64-linux

I can't reproduce this failure on my own machines.

Here is the backtrace, which has now been reproduced 3 times on the
build machines:

------
gnu/build/vm.scm:317:4: warning: possibly unbound variable `umount'
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
 160: 9 [catch #t #<catch-closure 8c7760> ...]
In unknown file:
   ?: 8 [apply-smob/1 #<catch-closure 8c7760>]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  66: 7 [call-with-prompt prompt0 ...]
In ice-9/eval.scm:
 432: 6 [eval # #]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
2412: 5 [save-module-excursion #<procedure 9027c0 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4084:3 ()>]
4091: 4 [#<procedure 9027c0 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4084:3 ()>]
1734: 3 [%start-stack load-stack #<procedure 914580 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4080:10 ()>]
1739: 2 [#<procedure 9156c0 ()>]
In unknown file:
   ?: 1 [primitive-load "/tmp/guix-build-guix-0.12.0-5.1162.drv-0/source/./build-aux/compile-all.scm"]
In ice-9/threads.scm:
  99: 0 [loop (("guix/base32.scm" "guix/base64.scm" "guix/cpio.scm" ...))]

ice-9/threads.scm:99:22: In procedure loop:
ice-9/threads.scm:99:22: In procedure fport_write: Bad address
make[2]: *** [Makefile:4926: make-go] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/guix-build-guix-0.12.0-5.1162.drv-0/source'
make[1]: *** [Makefile:4069: all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/guix-build-guix-0.12.0-5.1162.drv-0/source'
make: *** [Makefile:2725: all] Error 2
phase `build' failed after 133.0 seconds
------

There is also some interesting garbled text earlier in the logs.