GNU bug report logs - #44559
gnutls 3.6.12 fails to build: FAIL: status-request-revoked

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 44559 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe <at> gnu.org>, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, Carl Dong <contact <at> carldong.me>
Subject: bug#44559: gnutls 3.6.12 fails to build: FAIL: status-request-revoked
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 11:03:16 -0400

Hi everyone,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Hi,
>
> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Perhaps we could start by testing this hypothesis on a separate build
>>> farm.  Chris, Mathieu, WDYT?
>>
>> I'm currently thinking about attempting these kind of things (testing
>> building derivations under different conditions) through the agent tags
>> in the Guix Build Coordinator.
>>
>> I haven't used this functionality yet, but it's mostly implemented. The
>> idea is that agents have tags, that describe various attributes that are
>> important (time=normal, time=future, maybe for example), and builds can
>> also be targeted at specific agents by tagging the builds with those
>> same tags.
>
> Sounds nice!  Also varying kernels I guess.
>
>> Where I'm going with this is that I'm not sure a separate build farm is
>> needed, it would be good to just incorperate this in to the build farm
>> used for testing patches and non-master branches.
>
> Sure.  For the build-in-the-future thing, I think we could just do that
> by default; what I meant is that we just need to double-check beforehand
> that nothing breaks badly.

I lost track of the details -- is this problem still likely to bite us
in the future, or was something committed to mitigate against it?

Thanks,

Maxim

Previous Next

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