GNU bug report logs - #40518
guix pull: Dependency guix-packages-base fails

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 40518 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 40518 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: guix pull: Dependency guix-packages-base fails
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 14:30:28 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

From a relatively fresh system install, guix pull fails with the following error:

    |   @ build-started /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv - x86_64-linux /var/log/guix/drvs/wa//isnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv.bz2 2701
    Backtrace:
               1 (primitive-load "/home/x/.config/guix/current/bin/guix")
    In guix/ui.scm:
      1936:12  0 (run-guix-command _ . _)
    
    guix/ui.scm:1936:12: In procedure run-guix-command:
    In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting struct): #f

Attached is the full output of `guix build --debug=3'. The contents of
/var/log/guix/drvs/wa//isnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv.bz2
consist of just the single following line:

    [280/554] compiling...    1.1% of 277 files

Finally, my current generation is as follows:

    x <at> nash ~$ guix describe
    Generation 1     4月 08 2020 21:11:46   (current)
      guix 8c04471
        repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git
        branch: master
        commit: 8c04471f2403f05bcbea740e3722030e2b8311ec

This is my first bug report here, so if the above is grossly inadequate, I apologize.
Previously, on a different system, I encountered a similar issue and was able to
work around it by pulling twice, once with --commit=8c88e24229 and once normally.
This was suggested by brendyyn on #guix.

Cheers!

[pull.log (text/plain, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: elaexuotee--- via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com
Subject: Re: bug#40518: guix pull: Dependency guix-packages-base fails
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 11:40:47 +0200

Hello,

elaexuotee--- via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix <at> gnu.org> skribis:

>     guix/ui.scm:1936:12: In procedure run-guix-command:
>     In procedure struct-vtable: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting struct): #f
>
> Attached is the full output of `guix build --debug=3'. The contents of
> /var/log/guix/drvs/wa//isnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv.bz2
> consist of just the single following line:

I’m pretty sure the issue is caused by ‘--debug=3’.  Could you try
simply:

  guix build /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv

?

I thought there was an open bug report about this issue but I can’t find it.

In short, ‘--debug’ is almost never something you want to use, even as a
Guix developer.

Thanks in advance,
Ludo’.

Message #14 received at 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40518: guix pull: Dependency guix-packages-base fails
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 20:22:22 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> I’m pretty sure the issue is caused by ‘--debug=3’.  Could you try
> simply:
>
>   guix build /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv

Oh! I had no idea the --debug flag could affect build success. The original issue I
encountered was with a plain `guix pull', but in an attempt to provide the most useful
diagnostics, I tried including --debug=3. In any event, it just so happens that I
saved the output from the original pull command, which I am attaching in case it
happens to prove helpful.

As it turns out, I tried another pull just a bit earlier, which ended up succeeding;
however, I went ahead and tried running the build you suggest like this:

    $ guix pull -S 1  # broken build happened with generation 1
    $ guix build --check /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv
    The following derivation will be built:
       /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv
    building /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv...
    [321/554] compiling...   15.9% of 277 filesbuilder for `/gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv' failed due to signal 9 (Killed)
    build of /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv failed
    View build log at '/var/log/guix/drvs/wa/isnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv.bz2'.
    guix build: error: build of `/gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv' failed

What could be causing the build to receive SIGKILL?

[pull.log (text/plain, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #17 received at 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com
Cc: 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40518: guix pull: Dependency guix-packages-base fails
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2020 17:30:48 +0200

elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com skribis:

>> I’m pretty sure the issue is caused by ‘--debug=3’.  Could you try
>> simply:
>>
>>   guix build /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv
>
> Oh! I had no idea the --debug flag could affect build success. The original issue I
> encountered was with a plain `guix pull', but in an attempt to provide the most useful
> diagnostics, I tried including --debug=3. In any event, it just so happens that I
> saved the output from the original pull command, which I am attaching in case it
> happens to prove helpful.

Yeah, that ‘--debug=3’ leads to breakage is a bug.

> As it turns out, I tried another pull just a bit earlier, which ended up succeeding;
> however, I went ahead and tried running the build you suggest like this:
>
>     $ guix pull -S 1  # broken build happened with generation 1
>     $ guix build --check /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv
>     The following derivation will be built:
>        /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv
>     building /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv...
>     [321/554] compiling...   15.9% of 277 filesbuilder for `/gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv' failed due to signal 9 (Killed)
>     build of /gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv failed
>     View build log at '/var/log/guix/drvs/wa/isnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv.bz2'.
>     guix build: error: build of `/gnu/store/waisnnl9nbmlbpfwbn50pif79fsdknf9-guix-packages-base.drv' failed
>
> What could be causing the build to receive SIGKILL?

It could be an out-of-memory (OOM) condition: this build phase is
unfortunately very demanding currently (at least 2 GiB or RAM I think).
How much RAM do you have?

(Of course it’s OK if you get substitutes for that and don’t have to
build it locally, which hopefully is often the case.)

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #20 received at 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40518: guix pull: Dependency guix-packages-base fails
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:03:51 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

> It could be an out-of-memory (OOM) condition: this build phase is
> unfortunately very demanding currently (at least 2 GiB or RAM I think).
> How much RAM do you have?

I think we have a winner. This is running on a VM and I just realized it
it only runs with 500MB of ram.

So, if I am understanding correctly, for some reason the original pull
didn't have an available substitute; however, when I later tried again
the new HEAD referenced a guix-packages-base which *did* have a
substitute available?

Cheers.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #23 received at 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com
Cc: 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40518: guix pull: Dependency guix-packages-base fails
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:31:46 +0200

Hi,

elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com skribis:

>> It could be an out-of-memory (OOM) condition: this build phase is
>> unfortunately very demanding currently (at least 2 GiB or RAM I think).
>> How much RAM do you have?
>
> I think we have a winner. This is running on a VM and I just realized it
> it only runs with 500MB of ram.

OK.

> So, if I am understanding correctly, for some reason the original pull
> didn't have an available substitute; however, when I later tried again
> the new HEAD referenced a guix-packages-base which *did* have a
> substitute available?

That’s probably what happened, yes: if someone just pushed to repo, then
substitutes aren’t available yet; a few minutes later, they’re
available.

You can drop the attached file in ~/.config/guix/channels.scm to pull
from the latest commit that has been fully built (which is not exactly
equivalent to “substitutes available”, but as close to it as it gets):

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(use-modules (guix ci)
             (srfi srfi-1)
             (ice-9 match))

(define (latest-commit-successfully-built)
  "Return the latest commit for which substitutes are (potentially)
available."
  (let* ((evaluations (filter (lambda (evaluation)
                                (and (evaluation-complete? evaluation)
                                     (string=? "guix-modular-master"
                                               (evaluation-spec
                                                evaluation))))
                              (latest-evaluations "https://ci.guix.gnu.org"))))
    (any (lambda (evaluation)
           (match (evaluation-checkouts evaluation)
             ((checkout)
              (checkout-commit checkout))
             (_ #f)))
         evaluations)))

;; Pull the latest commit fully built on berlin.guixsd.org.
;; WARNING: This could downgrade your system!
(list (channel
       (name 'guix)
       (url "https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git")
       (commit (pk 'commit (latest-commit-successfully-built)))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Use with care! If the ci.guix.gnu.org is lagging or compromised, you
could find yourself not upgrading at all, or not upgrading to the latest
commit.

Ludo’.

Message #26 received at 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 40518 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40518: guix pull: Dependency guix-packages-base fails
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 12:25:47 +0900

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Thank you for hand holding me through this, and thank you for all the
amazing dev work.

Cheers.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #31 received at 40518-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com
Cc: 40518-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40518: guix pull: Dependency guix-packages-base fails
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 11:53:26 +0200

Hi,

elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com skribis:

> Thank you for hand holding me through this, and thank you for all the
> amazing dev work.

Heh, thanks, closing the bug!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.