From unknown Tue Sep 09 16:57:20 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#45826 <45826@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#45826 <45826@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: "build-system compiler failures are not cached as expected by Cuirass" Reply-To: bug#45826 <45826@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2025 23:57:20 +0000 retitle 45826 "build-system compiler failures are not cached as expected by= Cuirass" reassign 45826 guix submitter 45826 Leo Famulari severity 45826 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jan 12 16:04:33 2021 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Jan 2021 21:04:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33449 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kzQq3-0003H7-7O for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:04:33 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:57364) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kzQpy-0003Gw-Nd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:04:26 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36196) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kzQpy-0007CR-Ce for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:04:22 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:54665) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kzQpt-00007M-Vo for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:04:22 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DFF5C05D1; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:04:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:04:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s= mesmtp; bh=QccCwgU7ZaUceXJ+wJW6PqfY9i85szBKNI3DduKaZf8=; b=otLln hzLLJVRmnaELcUig5oNXYTpjaOdqEtPAFCKnKoHI3V7dHQiibIBpUvqe+phAJgYi wEpI8PlfesXmZa1cp+izSdUuPcoqSoBwweY6yE/5zVFG0FT8STOCnbkpABQ2D2sr mFv2+bj0v5/9p+qXS26xnpvZrcnxxWyDG5cYvg= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=QccCwgU7ZaUceXJ+wJW6PqfY9i85s zBKNI3DduKaZf8=; b=H3YurzGZkaeWtAWa/qFs85QY4Qs5V9MRzmYqe64bRn5VW /ifzqpb2BmPj5EW1+eGZ+erIaKam8d1X4fwS7VU/SNJSlJmqSRpKhrXYRAYa+az9 bU+06pTJu0hEWtDY58xRUkgh1OL79008M9OugctHqX4k5XvbNKRIt+liv3/HW9vw oXeiF2qy1IfsfOLC0grTy58zA9LRX6/ZUk5arPZn98nxl2MURlDrX7JNbda451gb pOi0EICFQGjx2xAabVa0ULstOXwV/6URj7DAZzpowhuAhLTvLx6BxeTHJ55mLxlt XLxGvzvEFtZRo02pQ/cwBE5woIxu0FyZGmOsR3QAw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedukedrtddtgdduudefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkgggtugesthdtredttd dtvdenucfhrhhomhepnfgvohcuhfgrmhhulhgrrhhiuceolhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhi rdhnrghmvgeqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepvefgkeevfeffhfefvdeigeehleegfeetle dtkedtgfevgfduudegjeefffevfeeunecuffhomhgrihhnpehgnhhurdhorhhgpdhmrghk vgdqthgrrhhgvghtqddvrdhshhdpshgstghlrdhorhhgnecukfhppedutddtrdduuddrud eiledruddukeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhr ohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F1FBA108005C for ; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:04:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:04:12 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Received-SPF: pass client-ip=66.111.4.26; envelope-from=leo@famulari.name; helo=out2-smtp.messagingengine.com X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) I noticed that many Common Lisp or SBCL-related packages are failing to build on the aarc64 platform on our build farm, due the failure to build SBCL: >From the log of : ------ //entering make-target-2.sh //doing warm init - compilation phase This is SBCL 2.1.0, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp. More information about SBCL is available at . SBCL is free software, provided as is, with absolutely no warranty. It is mostly in the public domain; some portions are provided under BSD-style licenses. See the CREDITS and COPYING files in the distribution for more information. Initial page table: Gen Boxed Code Raw LgBox LgCode LgRaw Pin Alloc Waste Trig WP GCs Mem-age 6 397 250 0 0 0 0 0 42335440 66352 2000000 647 0 0.0000 Total bytes allocated = 42335440 Dynamic-space-size bytes = 3221225472 COLD-INIT... (Length(TLFs)= 9736) Disassembler: 72 printers, 0 prefilters, 4 labelers CORRUPTION WARNING in SBCL pid 1774 tid 1774: Memory fault at 0xfffffffffffffffa (pc=0x1002199f70) The integrity of this image is possibly compromised. Exiting. Error opening /dev/tty: No such device or address Welcome to LDB, a low-level debugger for the Lisp runtime environment. ldb> real 0m6.120s user 0m5.958s sys 0m0.137s command "sh" "make.sh" "clisp" "--prefix=/gnu/store/j1ciw4dc8iskd5fdcw0s1ba08kkg7vx6-sbcl-2.1.0" "--dynamic-space-size=3072" "--with-sb-core-compression" "--with-sb-xref-for-internals" failed with status 1 ------ It appears that SBCL can support this platform. However, until we make it work, I plan to remove aarch64 from the "supported-systems" of sbcl, to avoid attempting these builds. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jan 13 16:04:17 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jan 2021 21:04:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36670 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kznJM-0005C4-SQ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 16:04:17 -0500 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:40393) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kznJK-0005Bk-3Z for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 16:04:11 -0500 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C589B2400FD for <45826@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:04:03 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1610571843; bh=wuXNr4rWKkwhxZN8uU54LwtM1LhRm3DgyjJ839h4Z9Q=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=jSkLYKFBeWhGKMPcGL9by5qTqnBXktWxTFgTQjNWaPwJnD/T+kajpSZUNV/H1RbF4 0PGZIBzprwdnwlLRshXScu/2es/hILAImQac71+l2b90s8fNHyuimilQ88kImUAcFN YXVky5LcQjU2gaUUC8BPKPsPpuK8qQYXdTlb9uLi9JgNcszArvmX8XZJbWiqHOuA84 0EhJYwSfAlgUr5yPkuEShuDO1PONE0qJjah9agfIyw1YEcBzHrDj4J3tmneIydr4WY KR0ljau3OyuuiDHEAMGc/CeWekat6HRJ8lHSl1Il6UTrTlnl1/HNW0MkCwbopJfLil FrQU1SZxsWFNQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4DGKgQ5k4jz9rxQ; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:04:02 +0100 (CET) References: User-agent: mu4e 1.4.14; emacs 27.1 From: Guillaume Le Vaillant To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:03:47 +0100 Message-ID: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: 45826@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Leo Famulari skribis: > I noticed that many Common Lisp or SBCL-related packages are failing to > build on the aarc64 platform on our build farm, due the failure to build > SBCL: > > From the log of : > > ------ > //entering make-target-2.sh > //doing warm init - compilation phase > This is SBCL 2.1.0, an implementation of ANSI Common Lisp. > More information about SBCL is available at . > > SBCL is free software, provided as is, with absolutely no warranty. > It is mostly in the public domain; some portions are provided under > BSD-style licenses. See the CREDITS and COPYING files in the > distribution for more information. > Initial page table: > Gen Boxed Code Raw LgBox LgCode LgRaw Pin Alloc Waste = Trig WP GCs Mem-age > 6 397 250 0 0 0 0 0 42335440 66352 = 2000000 647 0 0.0000 > Total bytes allocated =3D 42335440 > Dynamic-space-size bytes =3D 3221225472 > COLD-INIT... (Length(TLFs)=3D 9736) > Disassembler: 72 printers, 0 prefilters, 4 labelers > CORRUPTION WARNING in SBCL pid 1774 tid 1774: > Memory fault at 0xfffffffffffffffa (pc=3D0x1002199f70) > The integrity of this image is possibly compromised. > Exiting. > Error opening /dev/tty: No such device or address > Welcome to LDB, a low-level debugger for the Lisp runtime environment. > ldb>=20 > real 0m6.120s > user 0m5.958s > sys 0m0.137s > command "sh" "make.sh" "clisp" "--prefix=3D/gnu/store/j1ciw4dc8iskd5fdcw0= s1ba08kkg7vx6-sbcl-2.1.0" "--dynamic-space-size=3D3072" "--with-sb-core-com= pression" "--with-sb-xref-for-internals" failed with status 1 > ------ > > It appears that SBCL can support this platform. However, until we make > it work, I plan to remove aarch64 from the "supported-systems" of sbcl, > to avoid attempting these builds. I tried to bootstrap sbcl using ecl instead of clisp, using "guix build -s aarch64-linux sbcl" on a x86-64 machine because I don't have any arm64 hardware, but it failed with the same memory fault. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iIUEAREKAC0WIQTLxZxm7Ce5cXlAaz5r6CCK3yH+PwUCX/9gNA8cZ2x2QHBvc3Rl by5uZXQACgkQa+ggit8h/j92kwEAnEnm+2JgYtk3E4vAtgbxUH/LiK37rjPaCmDf fAs4lEgA+gKSYpQahe2Ih/t2mVKH3UX1TasYXhmdhl4aBbNSqIuH =JK4S -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Jan 13 18:25:19 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Jan 2021 23:25:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36789 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kzpVv-0004WK-Jn for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:25:19 -0500 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:54713) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kzpVt-0004Vy-NP for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:25:18 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66E915C017C; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:25:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:25:12 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=TqwQXCHlXWGuZmSU04NDXrK7 cDf6Dk9HPhP0f+89mxQ=; b=c7mU3d8s0BS7Lbn5hZ+7qef4Ap0Rao+rw81OLesy qVc7ZHrMgE56+ARclSu7T3vbyhdOVcO3KGn5ikILJQIy6hyQSztE5KXRGz1MemIE eWb/9eIxBGs8mHMmnF/Xfwigi28g4i0OTNyMZz9DatxPfFbwUGVubgqjlaIH4zNI a80= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=TqwQXC HlXWGuZmSU04NDXrK7cDf6Dk9HPhP0f+89mxQ=; b=OtDHIGUxAhN3nqMAHPQm7K zWtzqTHvFqudHYG3xjkuE6+XthVXtSJ8EaUaKjHaDha0nbnYHamwLr4k2kR/qnL6 0pdc1b9qxaWylnfwrwhcFaCtea+Tg5ymsKERuBG8judV3SGBkpqg/jvaLS4LQlRP C5iwvDogkW6sM36eQAb5joDBZK6exG7m8h+pU/OsxeKxBGD8P0ymFuTkSkm4hovP +4QlI7nithRYKIvVXzpgb83UV8TW5+N0Zsm1o4n949DJi6+7Qetuow2HV/O6fPl4 H3NhZ43XyYUdWmuvlWvIppJnrHjkmSGhB3FvJYbvShHH6iLF1uUG66/F/BLs8gQg == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedukedrtdeggddtlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertd dttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfhrghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghr ihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeukeektdffvddtudegjeegtdevhfeufe eivdejiedtieegtdevjedvjeehffevgfenucfkphepuddttddruddurdduieelrdduudek necuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgvoh esfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D0325108005B; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:25:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 18:25:09 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Guillaume Le Vaillant Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 Message-ID: References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: 45826@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:03:47PM +0100, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: > I tried to bootstrap sbcl using ecl instead of clisp, using > "guix build -s aarch64-linux sbcl" on a x86-64 machine because I don't > have any arm64 hardware, but it failed with the same memory fault. Thanks! On #guix, Efraim reported that the builds were succeeding on his aarch64 hardware. So, I'm not sure what's going on :/ From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 16 04:43:10 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jan 2021 09:43:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42420 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l0i6v-0003f6-U3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 04:43:10 -0500 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:41601) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l0i6t-0003eX-2a for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 04:43:08 -0500 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4BA116005C for <45826@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:43:00 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1610790180; bh=LoHYc601hBg+FFSJ1N7iu0VZIxYVfcfzY8iN+hJjVuw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=hDt25bUCGm1q07KrOxEQT4InUd3OXDIFUKYmEFBtHLUJiJVfC3OylK+vDHgx2wpEv jF1BeO2+PBkbZdqzhhlcny31FOjFJoP9FNSupGP/7fC03v095CfaiU+rnIBJW5YkbA FE/sKsvY/ROc4tnXYF6vDm7/0O6jBmr7FB1pVyz3AFKVdJ9evDS/sM2aLneOXrbdfW mGSyrcB1OY+wzubQcmjjsQ/R91uYcuFHbFxKlblTkyv1fNB4FAxGNscUxVYfFdm5gG UteszQk1wMrJKuhQNuSAXWjUIUjZhWGT9z2CxuvLHV21LYVlsEociMox4116vZ0l1b jUcYigE+6Is5g== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4DHtQC595Vz6tm5; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:42:59 +0100 (CET) References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.14; emacs 27.1 From: Guillaume Le Vaillant To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 In-reply-to: Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 10:42:58 +0100 Message-ID: <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: 45826@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Leo Famulari skribis: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:03:47PM +0100, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: >> I tried to bootstrap sbcl using ecl instead of clisp, using >> "guix build -s aarch64-linux sbcl" on a x86-64 machine because I don't >> have any arm64 hardware, but it failed with the same memory fault. > > Thanks! On #guix, Efraim reported that the builds were succeeding on his > aarch64 hardware. So, I'm not sure what's going on :/ When taking a look at the logs of failing builds of sbcl-* packages on aarch64-linux (for example at [1] for master or at [2] for staging), I saw that the build jobs try to build sbcl (which is currently failing) for every package. I would have expected the builds for sbcl-* packages to be marked as "failed because missing dependency" given that the main dependency of the asdf-build-system/sbcl failed to build. Instead the build farm is trying to rebuild sbcl over and over, which wastes quite some time and resources. It looks like the dependencies of the build system are not considered as dependencies for the packages that use this build system. Am I missing something? [1] https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/31355?status=failed [2] https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/20644?status=failed --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iIUEAREKAC0WIQTLxZxm7Ce5cXlAaz5r6CCK3yH+PwUCYAK1Ig8cZ2x2QHBvc3Rl by5uZXQACgkQa+ggit8h/j9h4AD+MBEdQORhMvPrvaJZVVljTjiw19ooig9SRpJU R71vvvYA/2fPqVnhZtiGpghQZzNCEYlON93rUj4f4rKtlexnjt+g =9u/D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 16 13:57:17 2021 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jan 2021 18:57:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44057 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l0qlB-00033n-AN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:57:17 -0500 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]:36423) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l0ql9-00033a-Nw for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:57:16 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A0D01666; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:57:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:57:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=TcEs9W+W5w/g3w1t4B87B7bVoQ/V1X+MFbOArr/iyFk=; b=Tnv2ws1PmBIB jWMdyzweey1ZxU7jwsI8AxQuKkO3e4w89r11h/6aI6ZrEctgu9eUM6u39oyLM2f1 LBobU49rAtaPbRX4CDEUacQ4tttThLrtA+eyThVY269OPxfEvsSKfCwyQZUOep/H 6G65ZMjeLARFsi+t7xdsrSW5B5mNdTk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:message-id :mime-version:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=TcEs9W+W5w/g3w1t4B87B7bVoQ/V1X+MFbOArr/iy Fk=; b=gORG5HBecOZuDkblXWl0KwHyYaPFDVK3S6Hr0igVeAPe28zShRRJGUYoK tApTzer6HKaZx7utEje7wRBmQNGzAgEq9GGGEBIT44odpJj1UUCg0phBEMei2PXq x7k2XHSvgQKWvAqI/GyA+ZX4iFSOl92ePTvx/u4FSXjDo7NL5FKjSQ8UrffyrTMN c9woJXf4OBYkjiVJ1ZQ1KKrB5GSEH41RfQDiyppUTJaw7TxWGtCJ9KrnTUSV57QR BaGjubKnSqkFVxLCNXVYxy3mfxEXTTK4r1y20Im7kodbEUSnM+MAMQHLWhUknRiI eeuoWwlejvpKAkwliPwKaEdeJroAQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrtdeggdduvdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucfgmhhpthihuchsuhgsjhgvtghtucdluddtmdenuc fjughrpeffhffvkfggtggusehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfhrghmuhhl rghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpe fhjeeigfefvedvfeetheegledtkeevuddtgedtudeiteehteegvdefffduffefffenucfk phepuddttddruddurdduieelrdduudeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrg hrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 03D931080057 for ; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:57:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:57:07 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Score: 3.3 (+++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: retitle 45826 "build-system compiler failures are not cached as expected by Cuirass" Content analysis details: (3.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [64.147.123.24 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4 RBL: Very Good reputation (+4) [64.147.123.24 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 2.0 BODY_EMPTY No body text in message X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: retitle 45826 "build-system compiler failures are not cached as expected by Cuirass" Content analysis details: (2.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4 RBL: Very Good reputation (+4) [64.147.123.24 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [64.147.123.24 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders 2.0 BODY_EMPTY No body text in message retitle 45826 "build-system compiler failures are not cached as expected by Cuirass" From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 16 13:58:51 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Jan 2021 18:58:51 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44063 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l0qmg-00036D-Oc for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:58:50 -0500 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]:38407) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l0qme-00035y-E7 for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:58:48 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4241653; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:58:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:58:42 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=hcu3ghh6k3CMWVhvAX9Hs3By VntxYnsuCYFKkuWwsvo=; b=Y+zBgvx1hWSpeZyV8nltLEbAfacK7NqPLpCEPLQ3 efalUWMCnNHDtLMk0/EuIdcVps8RtdTL7plfq1SGykYOrO9iTPcf+m+nZ6FSNVAU ZArpb1pELIpDoMGlOq7/JvjaxRtAgWVL/HZ6cCVJsFo9yUlyttgHDZFoWfPNGldo 0co= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=hcu3gh h6k3CMWVhvAX9Hs3ByVntxYnsuCYFKkuWwsvo=; b=Eo5aTN6gvYQ1IcyWME2q8E pHXGeHry8bVeU6ksHSwcn/HmwTOQDH5Je879OV5d5JHvh+hJ9Ko/HcEaiwjEW9Pa AfWA/stMsUh7NzUBuYxceCgv+lFM551imaAaz26fF5OIorf8xkcz1zEo5wgdq/nw +sxxKBN7oEBf3vOiL1sS7LvhLRwN4ZRVBdMHoagdHT4kN6vFH0D0ce8CZW0J8mhm 4nrIMllKrXZP4kbdr0R67BSZ5Q6CQw4mykHh2ez2jcHU8xM8T/NDivDjFULaiQSe lTnbIQdbhDTWVdgFNWn0IJCVcyJ84kj0gYf1oL7MRFef6p/ZYkXRIctU6vu8XJ8Q == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrtdeggdduvdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfh rghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpedvveegkeduiedvieeludevkeeugfeuueelhedtffegffdtfeekveelffeufedu keenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghenucfkphepuddttddruddurdduieelrdduud eknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgv ohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 505531080057; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:58:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:58:39 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Guillaume Le Vaillant Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 Message-ID: References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="E5hvDICIZM5BvgE4" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, Mathieu Othacehe , guix-sysadmin@gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) --E5hvDICIZM5BvgE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:42:58AM +0100, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: > When taking a look at the logs of failing builds of sbcl-* packages on > aarch64-linux (for example at [1] for master or at [2] for staging), > I saw that the build jobs try to build sbcl (which is currently failing) > for every package. >=20 > I would have expected the builds for sbcl-* packages to be marked as > "failed because missing dependency" given that the main dependency of > the asdf-build-system/sbcl failed to build. Instead the build farm is > trying to rebuild sbcl over and over, which wastes quite some time and > resources. >=20 > It looks like the dependencies of the build system are not considered as > dependencies for the packages that use this build system. > Am I missing something? That's a good observation. I hadn't thought of it. I'm CC-ing Mathieu Othacehe and guix-sysadmin so that we can disable these builds until we can fix the bug for real. Mathieu: this might explain why the build farm is spending all its effort on aarch64. By the way, SBCL can be built for aarch64 according to Efraim: http://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-01-13.log#105652 So, the original point of this bug is obviated, and I'm re-titling it to address your observation, Guillaume. --E5hvDICIZM5BvgE4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAmADN1wACgkQJkb6MLrK fwiBdhAA1HZOR3ryrc87Ahm5CIcrA+K09GZan7qAppEFCt+pKEyXpXMmpR8nblKb W8+mpcQBh3cT6bjIYesiBxH5YSm7MPSJeKMr/i9vX738lIoBrJUl2TcaI8qLAJ0r 2sgFaSw5pNnt62AAQ1rljlBF4+ZeHyIEQaq5euwkM4x5MNEXcCT/Y2J5wyB9TL9L jmDY1cKoHZOi4WZclUkvRzv3Pjy68/0LlEglUWr4OaYjvltzwSYRAFezevn0VqFE ocTfuXxAmtFqpFbEdm/5HSgiTVWK1t810svY/LGXfkdc0DGX030VoUpONdIcg57S ZE+G0CXZVnnLLZI0KbqIPXtO1lMaEVI8cNFlj6SWdwnNYm/Gk4KHTR3jFdj8GHF8 SLARCxsqQJMsjMk1+8ItfXpKjmOPVOATzkXPH9Rb459FGItOLAHoOPAfwVSdWAdk YNgNTSZpzRFYmBij4uTjkKzKlHycy/41FK1/CRw+yAroN1LMP/Xxn3fe5FA/ji7O ixbpwfqmTh9+NKyL8AVOtOfZxJVrQmEtJsH2kaHXX2F2dE9pE8WQG2ZDWYz9WQAt Xh8y9ZKBpvpEUSlDSHe/YuZ896ZmGlxFbWWD7wf5ltW8hEHzkHt23INkrowZP1cJ Xt/PEUNdcLaxggeo5WT3cVp1d2JXR2/yH2cutILkCYK4FWplYiA= =Hgrh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --E5hvDICIZM5BvgE4-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 17 04:30:00 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jan 2021 09:30:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44554 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l14Nj-0000t4-Pi for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 04:30:00 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58516) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l14Nh-0000sr-TC for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 04:29:59 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:35134) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l14Nc-0002aE-Cy; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 04:29:52 -0500 Received: from [2a01:e0a:19b:d9a0:1538:87ab:3a95:7600] (port=43980 helo=cervin) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1l14Nb-0007eu-R8; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 04:29:52 -0500 From: Mathieu Othacehe To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:29:49 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Leo Famulari's message of "Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:58:39 -0500") Message-ID: <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant , 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, mail@cbaines.net, guix-sysadmin@gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hello Leo & Guillaume, > That's a good observation. I hadn't thought of it. > > I'm CC-ing Mathieu Othacehe and guix-sysadmin so that we can disable > these builds until we can fix the bug for real. Mathieu: this might > explain why the build farm is spending all its effort on aarch64. If we want to disable SBCL builds temporarily we can do something similar to what I did to disable Rust builds on non-x86_64 architectures here: 0ed631866cc0b7cece2b0a0b50e39b37ae91bb67. Regarding the rebuilding that is a limitation of the new Cuirass remote building mechanism I am aware of and I need to solve. As build failures are only cached of the machine performing the build and the builds are now distributed to all the machines across the build farm, we need to find a way to centralize the builds failure cache. It would also be nice to optionally publish the build failures cache so that the user doesn't try to build a package that is known to be failing on the build farm. Chris, have you encountered this issue with the Build Coordinator? Thanks, Mathieu From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 17 06:36:02 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jan 2021 11:36:02 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44621 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l16Lh-00040H-RO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 06:36:02 -0500 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:59162) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l16Lb-000404-Tz for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 06:35:59 -0500 Received: from localhost (188.29.101.63.threembb.co.uk [188.29.101.63]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92F4B27BC13; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:35:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id ab6e6e9f; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:35:52 +0000 (UTC) References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.14; emacs 27.1 From: Christopher Baines To: Mathieu Othacehe Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 In-reply-to: <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:35:49 +0000 Message-ID: <87mtx794oa.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-sysadmin@gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Mathieu Othacehe writes: > Hello Leo & Guillaume, > >> That's a good observation. I hadn't thought of it. >> >> I'm CC-ing Mathieu Othacehe and guix-sysadmin so that we can disable >> these builds until we can fix the bug for real. Mathieu: this might >> explain why the build farm is spending all its effort on aarch64. > > If we want to disable SBCL builds temporarily we can do something > similar to what I did to disable Rust builds on non-x86_64 architectures > here: 0ed631866cc0b7cece2b0a0b50e39b37ae91bb67. > > Regarding the rebuilding that is a limitation of the new Cuirass remote > building mechanism I am aware of and I need to solve. As build failures > are only cached of the machine performing the build and the builds are > now distributed to all the machines across the build farm, we need to > find a way to centralize the builds failure cache. > > It would also be nice to optionally publish the build failures cache so > that the user doesn't try to build a package that is known to be failing > on the build farm. Chris, have you encountered this issue with the Build > Coordinator? Not really. The first thing to note is that I'm running the Guix Build Coordinator currently without the guix-daemon --cache-failures option, in fact it's probably unwise to do so, as it would mean that rather than some builds taking place, the guix-daemon could just return a cached failure. I should probably mention this in the README. The way this situation is dealt with in the Guix Build Coordinator is simplified by the agents not attempting builds where the derivation inputs aren't present. If an agent is unable to ensure all the inputs are present, it just reports this to the coordinator. The behaviour is configurable, but the default missing inputs hook will submit a new build for a missing input, but only if one doesn't already exist. Because of this, you don't get the behaviour where some missing prerequisite that fails to built is built over and over again, every time you try and build a derivation that uses it. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmAEIRVfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XfF9BAAs7g5bizndbOWK0euRKaN9i0G8Z4FMF63 uegYSNy2/opaqSmlIlH6rW/FTvWR258rjuPoVLiN+OWygkfRlJHzClVpu2mi5pHD 3wXA5AI3Dk8eMqTpgkaN7cZsqqlTooi5YP0JY/wTb9Gs86tzOYIrxikhYyqr5r+B m2kW1uq2elXjvbAU/OC8otS4opBypz9bUgZa4R3/cgPHvC/kwQuF/e/8kutsrN3e yaNwDvvrXBkxK/umR2RGCFGYIeCMCKigYdTE7JX6d/zdbOWQ/5AoxVCJe46djqOo 61HNNgWVw698k2bqnmpWNFVgOsamjzbpfZgPYw+MDt8EiTLbT2cRST//tFjUEvnd Wj8/bcWD9HTFKSi//h+37R5izXClXsM0K2fLR0KW64aT5ai0LxeJlS85gs0TSaD7 rO+rBpHU2y/yBDigCObi4GjBoxSTih/BeWd5LPU6Rv5RBqcwILxyZS60EcUxknPS Ij0zR/grLM6p+b/1M39Lvq8/+Ad87a2Rppj2K1odaqpvXzu5kv/ZWHCkKVvg3gfE Ptfqi0aW5BBLF66RjaKjrDahGg6fFQDYGHkjqT1a18x+DSefPzhRjXTWtBywpRMQ 8ZCX4zkTTxSCHnxinUx/1Fc6Hy7EH5idwEN7e8UKbBvy7hVjHw5aZYtbmcNxZRFc l5gZ4Cui1qo= =ZWAI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 17 14:11:23 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jan 2021 19:11:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45687 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1DSN-0002PA-G3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:11:23 -0500 Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]:53165) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1DSL-0002Ov-Ct for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:11:21 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2245B2EB; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:11:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:11:15 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=tSUB6sGiEkUs9/PsVM3ma7MN 2aA0h0gUtrOGQhMt6Vc=; b=NHC9symZJtgP3Z4AYPBYmUe5Hm7eOVvCHXjfLC8O si8jOZxsw3eg53uzijg/dXpf1pqjPrh60AYJKT9/RGWN03NWm/Wyktn0pbfzlLcW iSf+Cubx5MTSV5FMEFWLozcIujconJQB6X6UDSeyB3NogX8uB6SBagdLqcqaUHtn GpA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=tSUB6s GiEkUs9/PsVM3ma7MN2aA0h0gUtrOGQhMt6Vc=; b=Y6BuJ3egMGmmEupD2hgN2l vqWuz76a4S3GmhxeTsGk59zDs6dVGelYWGn84FAtUseN7StvcIJoccSG77UBHNie qBY/zDWVOCtX68tRlLa27dPj7wRx/nuTiCZoPBuB+6o64QPcXruUVLmoqca0xQAp pRN34U5jgKrNyo/N6Nrwgwb2VEz9AM1eozt6zLVnJATLySOutiPBzZJByqGKqSm+ MxE9qtejiW02lGsQJxDJ4JR7PakOoPYY8e3r2/U8n6YfANOowF0cZHO+kafBnXva OUe234cGbayynzXycV0gWH7J6j78tLgjy0ZPgWXXI4ByyU8p4a0jBAKlcYznV3kQ == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrtdeigdduvdegucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfh rghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeeukeektdffvddtudegjeegtdevhfeufeeivdejiedtieegtdevjedvjeehffev gfenucfkphepuddttddruddurdduieelrdduudeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id C9F7C240057; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:11:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:11:11 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Mathieu Othacehe Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 Message-ID: References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant , 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, mail@cbaines.net, guix-sysadmin@gnu.org, Efraim Flashner X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:29:49AM +0100, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: > If we want to disable SBCL builds temporarily we can do something > similar to what I did to disable Rust builds on non-x86_64 architectures > here: 0ed631866cc0b7cece2b0a0b50e39b37ae91bb67. ------ diff --git a/gnu/packages/rust.scm b/gnu/packages/rust.scm index 35a96b5754..91b5d6b6ec 100644 --- a/gnu/packages/rust.scm +++ b/gnu/packages/rust.scm @@ -452,6 +452,7 @@ test = { path = \"../libtest\" } (variable "LIBRARY_PATH") (files '("lib" "lib64"))))) + (supported-systems '("x86_64-linux")) (synopsis "Compiler for the Rust programming language") (description "Rust is a systems programming language that provides memory safety and thread safety guarantees.") ------ Hm, this would also prevent users from building the packages on their own machines. We need a way to make changes like this but limit them to the build farm. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 17 14:38:00 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Jan 2021 19:38:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45710 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1Ds8-00057f-6f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:38:00 -0500 Received: from flashner.co.il ([178.62.234.194]:52878) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1Ds7-00057U-8K for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 14:37:59 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [141.226.9.18]) by flashner.co.il (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C165D40336; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 19:37:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 21:37:11 +0200 From: Efraim Flashner To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 Message-ID: References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LaQSMlaRwoAeLjmL" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x41AAE7DCCA3D8351 X-PGP-Key: https://flashner.co.il/~efraim/efraim_flashner.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant , Mathieu Othacehe , mail@cbaines.net, 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-sysadmin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --LaQSMlaRwoAeLjmL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:11:11PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:29:49AM +0100, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: > > If we want to disable SBCL builds temporarily we can do something > > similar to what I did to disable Rust builds on non-x86_64 architectures > > here: 0ed631866cc0b7cece2b0a0b50e39b37ae91bb67. >=20 > ------ > diff --git a/gnu/packages/rust.scm b/gnu/packages/rust.scm > index 35a96b5754..91b5d6b6ec 100644 > --- a/gnu/packages/rust.scm > +++ b/gnu/packages/rust.scm > @@ -452,6 +452,7 @@ test =3D { path =3D \"../libtest\" } > (variable "LIBRARY_PATH") > (files '("lib" "lib64"))))) > =20 > + (supported-systems '("x86_64-linux")) > (synopsis "Compiler for the Rust programming language") > (description "Rust is a systems programming language that provides m= emory > safety and thread safety guarantees.") > ------ >=20 > Hm, this would also prevent users from building the packages on their > own machines. We need a way to make changes like this but limit them to > the build farm. Would marking it unsubstitutable work? Or would we need build-local --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --LaQSMlaRwoAeLjmL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAmAEkeQACgkQQarn3Mo9 g1Hcow//RGY7aaO+NApUdnpOV9hIC14X9coSVsEz0epWGn4xr8R1kBr0RSE5/wD/ 7u9sPrGH16uMGonQ+6pak3u30Wh6UjJBp+roFDASyrIX4it6TvFPNuX1FHr5yutU CoSPY/OuuQcZtp5/WkW8MmNLVgRYy3rhs566OBBK/Y5NYOcjlIkboQH6DXDi8Cqm chPKMGgKyYdjwJqvfkzDsc+2XkIhlBr2J/O2Pj+bjsgKKrojaHPosC7M4OdttMJi 8CtwfKRuSuoTaAarSinJUgtMxtu3zayHpdN6Fd8k/a6TQ2/BNnvM4IkJe665Ryup qM3BMfVHqOadb0TWCfJMVmFMps3Sd6lD7PxD20Lypflq/zYJbCScKI1+Wxut4yDl IP/zIWsL/v7oI3rPBkJ8U2/7hVCA1hlb1pHhJkOatvO4Z4PnT7IluiisjaArM13+ wlsaYE+HDvOvgXCRo0OinYY1VQxElVW7Ve8N0rHT7yHGEtaXM7FFT1pNasGTkXlU DBM8Ty3uAvulxjzFdr+bm+zM/QkUmYjMzPo9afHziXJ3mUvyNc1mfnl4Wny4gqDz k3FpJwOHCQW60GqX+vDrr77+PtjP43QrIrQS/A+GEuE4EaE7v2MzJNTnt0tAEqhf mBtC5kBLIJILyxnLVeNDl8P4Ew9iERCEsMewz5o37pW9gh67NjQ= =FHUG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LaQSMlaRwoAeLjmL-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jan 18 08:36:49 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Jan 2021 13:36:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46718 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1Ui8-0003zk-MT for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:36:48 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45744) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1Ui7-0003zY-G3 for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:36:47 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:55976) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l1Ui2-0006Id-0l; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:36:42 -0500 Received: from [2a01:e0a:19b:d9a0:1538:87ab:3a95:7600] (port=57040 helo=cervin) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1l1Ui1-0005SG-Fz; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 08:36:41 -0500 From: Mathieu Othacehe To: Christopher Baines Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtx794oa.fsf@cbaines.net> Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 14:36:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87mtx794oa.fsf@cbaines.net> (Christopher Baines's message of "Sun, 17 Jan 2021 11:35:49 +0000") Message-ID: <87czy2pdso.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-sysadmin@gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hey Chris, > The behaviour is configurable, but the default missing inputs hook will > submit a new build for a missing input, but only if one doesn't already > exist. Because of this, you don't get the behaviour where some missing > prerequisite that fails to built is built over and over again, every > time you try and build a derivation that uses it. Oh, makes sense, thanks for explaining. I also had a look to Hydra in that matter. They are breaking a "Build" into "BuildSteps" corresponding more or less to the build dependencies, or "Inputs" in the Coordinator. This way they make sure not to submit multiple times a same build to the workers. It means that it is also no longer needed to cache build failures I guess. I think it would be really nice to port this mechanism to Cuirass. Thanks, Mathieu From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jan 19 08:14:10 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jan 2021 13:14:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49690 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1qpm-0001gL-HU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:14:10 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:54408) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1qpi-0001ft-NG for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:14:08 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:51390) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l1qpc-0007iF-FJ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:14:00 -0500 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=41438 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1l1qpc-0002p9-0b; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:14:00 -0500 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 30 =?utf-8?Q?Niv=C3=B4se?= an 229 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:13:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Efraim Flashner's message of "Sun, 17 Jan 2021 21:37:11 +0200") Message-ID: <87pn21hxwp.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant , 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-sysadmin@gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hi, Efraim Flashner skribis: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:11:11PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:29:49AM +0100, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: >> > If we want to disable SBCL builds temporarily we can do something >> > similar to what I did to disable Rust builds on non-x86_64 architectur= es >> > here: 0ed631866cc0b7cece2b0a0b50e39b37ae91bb67. >>=20 >> ------ >> diff --git a/gnu/packages/rust.scm b/gnu/packages/rust.scm >> index 35a96b5754..91b5d6b6ec 100644 >> --- a/gnu/packages/rust.scm >> +++ b/gnu/packages/rust.scm >> @@ -452,6 +452,7 @@ test =3D { path =3D \"../libtest\" } >> (variable "LIBRARY_PATH") >> (files '("lib" "lib64"))))) >>=20=20 >> + (supported-systems '("x86_64-linux")) >> (synopsis "Compiler for the Rust programming language") >> (description "Rust is a systems programming language that provides = memory >> safety and thread safety guarantees.") >> ------ >>=20 >> Hm, this would also prevent users from building the packages on their >> own machines. We need a way to make changes like this but limit them to >> the build farm. > > Would marking it unsubstitutable work? Or would we need build-local If you mark it as #:substitutable? #f, then CI won=E2=80=99t try to build i= t but users can still build it. Now, I think we should avoid papering over CI configuration issues (did I get that right?) by changing package definitions. HTH! Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Jan 19 15:17:18 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jan 2021 20:17:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51891 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1xRG-000461-MZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:18 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:54683) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1xRD-00045i-3Y for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:16 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4665C023D; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=msGFE9ukuQ9yMv5Oy8+/8kKwNu5VGvgKmDI2hA++of0=; b=ZQwyvWdOI0Y4 QhguuqbGKJUPVMJYFumBZGy//O6yLyQIMUhJxa7JFY74QdOro0bdjBAI+Nz+o4QA IxLrMmZze0fE0D/MB8L88Ki8DDwvKjb8zm28gWf/pcGIaftUiJdHEVUfJCNSTUgl 3/5yrrRwALDeZawsm80DaKYjvWTiWb0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=msGFE9ukuQ9yMv5Oy8+/8kKwNu5VGvgKmDI2hA++o f0=; b=V9C7Awi5dG34dh+qXDad81O/TZhnxU1W5HMvkCmxLFrUSUHgKN55D4uZM jxcCuIoE7KiZWwJUw+bODI/bRj23Flv6zwpzIP9Wjv33NxlV8Ykqu8ZG6ARgHSnU 01IrmBxp0NQlOi+3tpvgJLOscWhiAKSb9BuNFB7RK8xn6HoUR0i7cR/Oz4uJ7ZC1 WYJbn37zi0FOm3TE59hCtT3D7zCNd8IuEzmFUyg7syweQM6DiIfl18K2TUbysdrV PErCU7tPEFwHPtGvsl6/cntruSLJyE+zD9eqA94npyeUPxPuJdllSJE98kxDi+LJ cEut9iFhPwtSccUNL8tkE4TC1Zxww== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledruddtgddufeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtugfgjgesthekredttddtudenucfhrhhomhepnfgvohcu hfgrmhhulhgrrhhiuceolhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvgeqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepueeugedugfdvgfevuedvleduleefjefhgefgjeetgfegkedukefhvdefleej hefgnecukfhppedutddtrdduuddrudeiledruddukeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 432CD24005E; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:05 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 Message-ID: References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn21hxwp.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87pn21hxwp.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant , 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner , guix-sysadmin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:13:58PM +0100, Ludovic Courtčs wrote: > Now, I think we should avoid papering over CI configuration issues (did > I get that right?) by changing package definitions. Yes, that's idiomatic English, if that is what you were asking about. And I agree, the package definitions shouldn't include workarounds for CI problems. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 01 15:56:27 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Feb 2021 20:56:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33394 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l6gFG-0002uu-Sw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 15:56:27 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47108) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l6gFF-0002ui-JE for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 15:56:26 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:32953) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l6gF9-000728-Us; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 15:56:19 -0500 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=51838 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1l6gEw-0005nG-EW; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 15:56:17 -0500 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn21hxwp.fsf@gnu.org> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 13 =?utf-8?Q?Pluvi=C3=B4se?= an 229 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 21:56:05 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Leo Famulari's message of "Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:05 -0500") Message-ID: <87y2g7ik2i.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant , 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner , guix-sysadmin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Leo Famulari skribis: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:13:58PM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> Now, I think we should avoid papering over CI configuration issues (did >> I get that right?) by changing package definitions. > > Yes, that's idiomatic English, if that is what you were asking about. > > And I agree, the package definitions shouldn't include workarounds for > CI problems. This time I wasn=E2=80=99t asking about English :-), but rather about wheth= er the patch Efraim provided was indeed to paper over our CI problems. Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 01 16:13:44 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Feb 2021 21:13:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33415 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l6gW0-0003Ki-7A for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:13:44 -0500 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:40751) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l6gVx-0003KQ-4d for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:13:43 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA025C01B0; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:13:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 Feb 2021 16:13:36 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=VzDME/q0Al4KBx+ZHfOcV7UkfghNDqAhC1MR+q9tD6M=; b=JzM72pVSlBqk PDFKXT+1rFRzNAJqu0K1PhXVvQx1pLijhxS0mu96OUAYzwLZuhTECP7u7RAdxzbP ddmR+Nm41hnw/Z7UoZV4Pr8xV/6mzAMtpNucCLPaPKh9ME01XvHCRpHLYXxZHqSO qGGHjbN4QwcbOEUxdwU/fRjksZM/wIM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=VzDME/q0Al4KBx+ZHfOcV7UkfghNDqAhC1MR+q9tD 6M=; b=e1X88+gMx6C3wPGEmv0TBPqselGlm+/WPcrZclIGTcGvu+3GOxkjCAbVi OtOLQiPyihqvFClC5NOlcm0J0WI6WKYHN4XuKiwQR8ogysCP+a4n/l8b0brSkkaH sQDWEdbrwKaL99x22laxLSRfpMl4w3kkqtH1W7OPPjhaWamj+FOy9jlxMS9lFhr2 XuENDIuQL2UXu+vlPisqTWDG1L6TlSf2D60sYqhveqbOjbNHKv6XIOeqAyfDuWCj SMPL/4WRGRdNEoSQki8TUZtC6yByLe1EL+OqF7OIZjRSAZM5DGvrbj7h+kNklPS3 ehU34fZCJfn+put6RwORJHJ+IFMmQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeekgddugeejucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtugfgjgesthekredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepnfgvohcu hfgrmhhulhgrrhhiuceolhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvgeqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepgfduffettedtkeekudfhgfefgfeifeegueeitedujeffleeiudeuieffgfdu gfdunecuffhomhgrihhnpehgnhhurdhorhhgnecukfhppedutddtrdduuddrudeiledrud dukeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehl vghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1CCE61080057; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:13:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 16:13:28 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 Message-ID: References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn21hxwp.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2g7ik2i.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87y2g7ik2i.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant , 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner , guix-sysadmin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 09:56:05PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > This time I wasn’t asking about English :-), but rather about whether > the patch Efraim provided was indeed to paper over our CI problems. Well, that patch does indeed "paper over" the CI problems. Christopher Baines has graciously given me access to his Overdrive 1000 (monokuma), so I am able to test building packages on bare-metal aarch64. I'm testing building sbcl-cambl on it now. That is the package that spurred this bug report. Unfortunately, the aarch64 emulation we are using on berlin does cause a lot of failures that can't be reproduced on real hardware. We are using QEMU, right? If so, there is a new major QEMU update available on guix-patches, and maybe that would fix some problems: https://bugs.gnu.org/45014 As I mentioned in that patch submission, there are some minor issues with the update, but maybe we should just go for it. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 01 17:03:49 2021 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Feb 2021 22:03:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33446 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l6hIS-0004WK-OX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:03:49 -0500 Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.27]:40437) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l6hIQ-0004W9-TU for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:03:47 -0500 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F835C00A4; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:03:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 01 Feb 2021 17:03:41 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=bPziTcZAD8yeQRPDAstWtwQ4 HvJ5NiHhnroqOtOll2E=; b=xX1KuT/7hr8+ENSdlKVW0yXIunu5fhf7YiQ54RLb GQBVOul1lRme/pklxnQXzd873XWiGbjFUC4a2a2inqNSGZ4LbQmwNUUdFTMAVpBk 3acLtw5vu2QPbQJznL/TWBgsK5ndSCEjpStedxp2J9fdDgwTbOnYhPAXGj+7s1Sh ncA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=bPziTc ZAD8yeQRPDAstWtwQ4HvJ5NiHhnroqOtOll2E=; b=ghhUhFvXHEoFnkLuJh1enM 3Z3ArruMP4IZ0C8C+ue35c6OdWGZi6ruoiJ6nDsBFega7psORE4NM2+hi5btMbVA iJQbb7Fcj5sY9CP01ebo0dMalbzM9ttee+buOaiTZCQNMjAvkBmXpm4gfkhRS/aR cy5GeT/k4HGZ+Jw5TayEy/2njkOMUyv54xuZ1vZ5D2fDY+r/D2KqkK6CiRnQfc/v aYLvU8rhw+Ddp6rJHk4O+rni+WQ2Ksyot0HMjfML8ykWoxOTrNnj//Yu+V2P819m eNuPSe452pIcN53BzuVujj1YJO8rUo0CRLvV3sg7PIGFlzJYuS6E/a6eBQB59gKw == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeekgdduhedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfh rghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeeukeektdffvddtudegjeegtdevhfeufeeivdejiedtieegtdevjedvjeehffev gfenucfkphepuddttddruddurdduieelrdduudeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd enucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 3867324005E; Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:03:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2021 17:03:39 -0500 From: Leo Famulari To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Subject: Re: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 Message-ID: References: <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn21hxwp.fsf@gnu.org> <87y2g7ik2i.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 45826 Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant , 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, Efraim Flashner , guix-sysadmin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 04:13:28PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > I'm testing building sbcl-cambl on it now. That is the package that > spurred this bug report. This build [0] succeeds on the overdrive. So, we should prioritize getting the overdrives back into the build farm, and we can also try the newer QEMU. [0] /gnu/store/spjz8fh5kx6fh4qx69d4f21r9km77v59-sbcl-cambl-4.0.0-1.7016d1a.drv