GNU bug report logs - #75805
Request for merging "elogind-updates" branch

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 75805 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 75805 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: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: guix-patches <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Request for merging "elogind-updates" branch
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 23:47:19 +0900

Hi,

This updates elogind to 255.17, the latest version.  It's already been
built for x86_64 on the CI, without issues apparently:
https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/2020498

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #8 received at 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "elogind-updates" branch
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2025 22:57:29 +0200

Hello Maxim,

just a quick heads-up that your branch is being built on QA now;
if it works out well, I think you can jump ahead of python-team and push
it to master.

Andreas

Message #11 received at 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "elogind-updates" branch
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2025 14:25:51 +0900

Hi,

Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr> writes:

> Hello Maxim,
>
> just a quick heads-up that your branch is being built on QA now;
> if it works out well, I think you can jump ahead of python-team and push
> it to master.

I had found a small problem where the localed daemon was not failing due
to it inheriting from elogind.

I've bumped it to latest version in my local branch but it needs some
local testing before refreshing the remote.

Thanks for the heads-up!

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #14 received at 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Request for merging "elogind-updates" branch
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2025 16:59:39 +0900

Hi,

Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr> writes:

> Hello Maxim,
>
> just a quick heads-up that your branch is being built on QA now;
> if it works out well, I think you can jump ahead of python-team and push
> it to master.

I bumped localed, which was on a very old version compared to our
elogind (both extracted from systemd), and stumbled across
non-deterministic test failures on my way to test the desktop, which
I've fixed.  I've updated a few low risk packages on the way that needed
rebuilt anyway, and tested they worked fine.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #17 received at 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Subject: Re: Request for merging "elogind-updates" branch
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2025 10:27:20 +0200

Hello Maxim,

Am Sat, Apr 05, 2025 at 04:59:39PM +0900 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
> I bumped localed, which was on a very old version compared to our
> elogind (both extracted from systemd), and stumbled across
> non-deterministic test failures on my way to test the desktop, which
> I've fixed.  I've updated a few low risk packages on the way that needed
> rebuilt anyway, and tested they worked fine.

does it mean the branch is likely to be in final shape? If yes and it
builds, please feel free to push first before the python team, who needs
a bit more time.

Thanks,

Andreas

Message #20 received at 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>, 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#75805] Request for merging "elogind-updates" branch
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 10:14:05 +0200

Hi Maxim,

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> This updates elogind to 255.17, the latest version.  It's already been
> built for x86_64 on the CI, without issues apparently:
> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/2020498
>
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Maxim

Do you think this branch is about ready to be merged? If not, would you
be okay with me sneaking in the node-team branch merge ahead of this
one? It already has pretty decent substitute availability right now, and
the next Node.js LTS release is slated for 22/04/25, at which point I'd
like to start a new round of patches on a new branch.

Kind regards,
Jelle

Message #23 received at 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>
Cc: 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#75805] Request for merging "elogind-updates" branch
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 10:15:23 +0100

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

Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This updates elogind to 255.17, the latest version.  It's already been
>> built for x86_64 on the CI, without issues apparently:
>> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/2020498
>>
>> -- 
>> Thanks,
>> Maxim
>
> Do you think this branch is about ready to be merged? If not, would you
> be okay with me sneaking in the node-team branch merge ahead of this
> one? It already has pretty decent substitute availability right now, and
> the next Node.js LTS release is slated for 22/04/25, at which point I'd
> like to start a new round of patches on a new branch.

Substitute availablity seems to be good but only since there's so few
packages affected by the changes on this branch. QA doesn't look to have
any information on the changes yet.

We've only just switched yesterday to prioritising elogind-updates over
python-team, I think at least a few more days are needed to give QA time
to make more progress building elogind-updates before considering
switching up the order again.

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

Message #26 received at 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Cc: 75805 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#75805] Request for merging "elogind-updates" branch
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2025 10:28:42 +0200

Hello all,

I see one failure in the elogind-updates branch that is probably related
to the changes:

   https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/elogind-updates/package-changes?armhf-linux-change=broken&armhf-linux-change=still-failing&armhf-linux-change=unknown-to-failing&armhf-linux-change=new-failing

sssd fails across all architectures.

From my point of view, if the node-team branch is ready to be merged
(one outstanding failure, libnode on 32 bits), it could go ahead;
with a bit of luck, these two branches are essentially independent,
so rebasing elogind-updates after the node-teams merge would not cause
too many rebuilds.

Andreas

Message #31 received at 75805-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 75805-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bug#75805] Request for merging "elogind-updates" branch
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 15:12:25 +0100

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

Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr> writes:

> I see one failure in the elogind-updates branch that is probably related
> to the changes:
>
>    https://qa.guix.gnu.org/branch/elogind-updates/package-changes?armhf-linux-change=broken&armhf-linux-change=still-failing&armhf-linux-change=unknown-to-failing&armhf-linux-change=new-failing
>
> sssd fails across all architectures.
>
> From my point of view, if the node-team branch is ready to be merged
> (one outstanding failure, libnode on 32 bits), it could go ahead;
> with a bit of luck, these two branches are essentially independent,
> so rebasing elogind-updates after the node-teams merge would not cause
> too many rebuilds.

I've gone ahead and pushed the elogind-updates changes to master
now. I've reconfigured my laptop with the changes, and things seem to
work.

Unfortunately this breaks sssd, maybe this could have been avoided by
not bumping samba/pinned, but unfortunately I don't know why that change
was made on this branch, and at this point it would probably cause lots
of rebuilds.

I added a deprecated alias for inkscape/stable, since just removing that
could break any channel making use of that export.

I also removed the "upstream: Do not update to same version." commit
from the pushed changes since I fail to see the relation to elogind, and
it seems like this doesn't need to go via a branch. I couldn't see what
patch series included it, so I've submitted it as #77741.

Thanks for all your work preparing these changes Maxim!

Chris

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

Previous Next

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