GNU bug report logs - #55231
[PATCH v1] initrd: Allow extra search paths with ‘initrd-extra-module-paths’

Previous Next

Full log

Message #158 received at 55231 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Morgan Arnold <morgan.arnold <at> proton.me>
To: Morgan Arnold <morgan.arnold <at> proton.me>
Cc: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>, Ian Eure <ian <at> retrospec.tv>,
 "ludo <at> gnu.org" <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 "maximedevos <at> telenet.be" <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>,
 "guix-devel <at> gnu.org" <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>, Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>,
 "kaelyn.alexi <at> protonmail.com" <kaelyn.alexi <at> protonmail.com>,
 "john.kehayias <at> protonmail.com" <john.kehayias <at> protonmail.com>,
 "55231 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <55231 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#55231: [PATCH v1] initrd: Allow extra search paths with ‘initrd-extra-module-paths’
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:41:22 +0000

Hi all,

> I'm not sure if what I'm proposing would actually work.

How prophetic.

I did some more testing with the proposed change to `derivation`, and it seems to be causing a weird issue. I didn't think that propagating non-substitutability would be much of a problem, since there are very few non-substitutable packages, but I was surprised to find that this change makes almost all packages non-substitutable! I did some REPL-ing to find the culprit, and it when I traced it back, I found that all of my non-substitutable derivations appeared to be so because their dependency graph included a derivation called `#<derivation /gnu/store/qbrwrmdgnfx3p9gl499f5pyhv0fcnw0a-gcc-11.4.0.drv => /gnu/store/d69awcc5wahh71amx0dmgaimsdvvp2bg-gcc-11.4.0-lib 7fc7c9bb99b0>`.

Unfortunately, I cannot for the life of me figure out what this derivation is, or why it isn't substitutable (all of its inputs are substitutable, and I can't find any relevant package explicitly marked as non-substitutable). I wonder if maybe it has something to do with the `gnu-build-system`? It appears to be an input of `bash-minimal`, which is what leads me to that suspicion. If I could figure out what this derivation is and why it's non-substitutable, I think that the change that the proposed change to `derivation` would work (and, in some sense, implement what ought intuitively to be the default behaviour, as Brian noted).

Any and all relevant thoughts would be much appreciated.

Best,

Morgan

Previous Next

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