GNU bug report logs - #54292
Commit e8518c43 breaks guix pull on i686

Previous Next

Full log

Message #17 received at 54292 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> ist.tugraz.at>
To: Diego Nicola Barbato <dnbarbato <at> posteo.de>
Cc: 54292 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Philip McGrath <philip <at> philipmcgrath.com>
Subject: Re: Commit e8518c43 breaks guix pull on i686
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2022 16:32:48 +0100

Am Dienstag, dem 08.03.2022 um 09:00 +0100 schrieb Liliana Marie
Prikler:
> > I do think this is an issue with commit e8518c43 because
> > 
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> > guix pull --commit=e8518c43 --system=i686-linux -p /tmp/guix
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> > 
> > fails to build the package cache whereas 
> > 
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> > guix pull --commit=75f9f944 --system=i686-linux -p /tmp/guix
> > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> > 
> > succeeds (75f9f944 being the parent commit of e8518c43).  I even ran
> > these with --substitute-urls=https://bordeaux.guix.gnu.org in a
> > freshly downloaded instance of the 1.3.0 QEMU image [5] to rule out
> > corrupted substitutes from berlin with the same result.
> For the sake of completeness, I'll be running this with --no-
> substitutes and see what happens.  If you want to try the same without
> rebuilding the world, I suggest first pulling
> b5f654b238dd3dec43b0ee9e08b78981cf8de981 with substitutes -- that is
> the last commit before the series. 
Okay, I now have the confirmation that this fails even "without any
substitutes" (I only had the guix package itself substituted to cut out
a little of the bootstrap chain).  I also have a full backtrace:

In gnu/packages.scm:
   437:11 19 (generate-package-cache _)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
   460:18 18 (fold #<procedure expand-cache expr> _ _)
In guix/packages.scm:
   518:21 17 (expand-cache . _)
  1260:17 16 (supported-package? #<package chez-fmt <at> 0.8.11 gnu/pack…>
…)
In guix/memoization.scm:
    101:0 15 (_ #<hash-table a794e00 4898/7027> #<package chez-fmt@…>
…)
In guix/packages.scm:
  1230:12 14 (_)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
   460:18 13 (fold #<procedure ba84a30 at guix/packages.scm:1230:18…>
…)
In guix/packages.scm:
  1234:42 12 (_ _ ("x86_64-linux" "i686-linux" "armhf-linux" "aar…" …))
In guix/memoization.scm:
    101:0 11 (_ #<hash-table a794e00 4898/7027> #<package chez-sche…>
…)
In guix/packages.scm:
  1230:12 10 (_)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
   460:18  9 (fold #<procedure ba84960 at guix/packages.scm:1230:18…>
…)
In guix/packages.scm:
  1234:42  8 (_ _ ("x86_64-linux"))
In guix/memoization.scm:
    101:0  7 (_ #<hash-table a794e00 4898/7027> #<package stex <at> 1.2.…>
…)
In guix/packages.scm:
  1238:37  6 (_)
  1498:16  5 (package->bag _ _ _ #:graft? _)
  1603:43  4 (thunk)
In gnu/packages/chez.scm:
   457:28  3 (arguments #<package stex <at> 1.2.2-1.5405149 gnu/packages/…>)
    65:16  2 (chez-machine->threaded #f)
In unknown file:
           1 (string-ref #f 0)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1685:16  0 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)

The error appears to be that nix-system->chez-machine was rather poorly
coded and overlooked in review.  In particular, i686 should probably
also default to the i386 case.

Cheers

Previous Next

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