GNU bug report logs - #78689
Request for merging "nss-updates" branch

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 78689 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

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 "nss-updates" branch
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 11:21:01 +0900

See https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/pulls/400

Message #10 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: 76044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, iyzsong <at> envs.net,
 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>, Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Subject: After the merge is before the merge
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 21:13:42 +0200

Hello all,

after the core-packages-team merge, your three branches are next in
line; could you maybe rebase them on master (a commit after
4d8c55de60cf9a5cafc4b881035131921d07314d, preferably one known to the
QA data service as shown here:
   https://data.qa.guix.gnu.org/repository/1/branch/master

The qt-team branch was closed for a while, since it required the
core-packages-team branch to be merged; to repair breakage in the
latter, we actually moved some of its commits already, so part of the
branch is already applied. If you are ready, you can reopen the bug,
and qt-team will go to the front.

The nss-updates and c++-team branches come in a certain order right now,
but this needs not be fixed. Depending on how well QA and CI work,
respectively, it might also be an option to have them built by CI
instead. In theory, they should just work and just need to be built for
getting substitutes, but who knows!
As for qt-team, you may also update your updates to latest releases and
force-push the branches.

Andreas

Message #15 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 76044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>,
 Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>, Zheng Junjie <z572 <at> z572.online>,
 iyzsong <at> envs.net, 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: After the merge is before the merge
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 21:19:31 +0900

Hi Andreas,

+CC Zheng

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

> Hello all,
>
> after the core-packages-team merge, your three branches are next in
> line; could you maybe rebase them on master (a commit after
> 4d8c55de60cf9a5cafc4b881035131921d07314d, preferably one known to the
> QA data service as shown here:
>    https://data.qa.guix.gnu.org/repository/1/branch/master
>
> The qt-team branch was closed for a while, since it required the
> core-packages-team branch to be merged; to repair breakage in the
> latter, we actually moved some of its commits already, so part of the
> branch is already applied. If you are ready, you can reopen the bug,
> and qt-team will go to the front.

Which bug must be reopened? The merge request?

[...]

> As for qt-team, you may also update your updates to latest releases and
> force-push the branches.

I tried to rebase it, but there are lots of tricky conflicts to resolve
in KDE applications; I'll defer to Zheng, as they authored the changes
and probably know which variants are the most up to date/correct.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #18 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 76044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>,
 Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, iyzsong <at> envs.net, 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: After the merge is before the merge
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 16:08:58 -0400

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 3:13 PM Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> after the core-packages-team merge, your three branches are next in
> line; could you maybe rebase them on master (a commit after
> 4d8c55de60cf9a5cafc4b881035131921d07314d, preferably one known to the
> QA data service as shown here:
>    https://data.qa.guix.gnu.org/repository/1/branch/master
>
> The qt-team branch was closed for a while, since it required the
> core-packages-team branch to be merged; to repair breakage in the
> latter, we actually moved some of its commits already, so part of the
> branch is already applied. If you are ready, you can reopen the bug,
> and qt-team will go to the front.
>
> The nss-updates and c++-team branches come in a certain order right now,
> but this needs not be fixed. Depending on how well QA and CI work,
> respectively, it might also be an option to have them built by CI
> instead. In theory, they should just work and just need to be built for
> getting substitutes, but who knows!
> As for qt-team, you may also update your updates to latest releases and
> force-push the branches.
>
> Andreas

Sharlatan has been quicker on the draw, but I have also been rebasing
the c++-team branch and fixing the conflicts on
b22edc407e34848745106ce29040bbfa29aeeec3, which showed "Failed to
import data" rather than the usual "No information yet" and did not
appear to work, and now 9bff5e0ecb40fe3988ea8b33d679dedca03a7bdc shows
green.

Greg

Message #21 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 76044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>,
 Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, iyzsong <at> envs.net, 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: After the merge is before the merge
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 10:05:14 -0400

The c++-team is currently at the head of the queue at qa.guix.gnu.org
and displays the following message:
  "Submitting builds for this branch suspended as master branch
substitute availability is low for: armhf-linux i686-linux"
and no builds have been attempted on the team branch.

Substitute availability on master is shown as 33.1% for armhf-linux
and 78.1% for i686-linux. I'm not noticing much improvement in those
numbers, but I can track this better now that I have recorded a point
in time.

This seems like a less than optimal behavior for the system to shut
down building on primary architectures for team branches when the
secondary architectures have large numbers of blocked builds,
presumably due to the recent core-packages-team merge.

Greg

Message #24 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Cc: 76044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>,
 Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, iyzsong <at> envs.net, 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: After the merge is before the merge
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 16:52:05 +0200

Hello Greg,

Am Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:05:14AM -0400 schrieb Greg Hogan:
> Substitute availability on master is shown as 33.1% for armhf-linux
> and 78.1% for i686-linux. I'm not noticing much improvement in those
> numbers, but I can track this better now that I have recorded a point
> in time.
> 
> This seems like a less than optimal behavior for the system to shut
> down building on primary architectures for team branches when the
> secondary architectures have large numbers of blocked builds,
> presumably due to the recent core-packages-team merge.

indeed this is a problem! In particular now since I think the number
of buildable packages has gone below the limit of 80% on these two
architectures, so we will never reach this barrier. (I deduce this from
the numbers not going up.) However, on i686 I think we are on our way to
above 80% with all the recent changes on master.

I have submitted a PR here:
   https://codeberg.org/guix/qa-frontpage/pulls/8
and am working on integrating and deploying it.

The qt-team branch has also reopened and gone to the front of the queue,
since it had been waiting longer and just been suspended while waiting
for core-packages-team, on which it depends, to let other branches go to
the front.

The c++-team branch has started on CI as well:
   https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/c++-team
but I am rather puzzled by the outcome.
The page itself shows an enormous number of failed packages in the red
box (almost all of them, plus some that are still in progress); when
clicking on the red box, I find packages such as ocaml that failed their
test phase with 0 failed tests. On the other hand, when clicking on the
dashboard (the monitor symbol to the right), almost all packages are
either green or transparent, and when one clicks on a transparent dot,
it shows the build as scheduled. But I know very little about CI.

All of qt-team, c++-team and nss-updates are accessible from CI as well,
so as soon as one of them is seen to be ready there, it can be pushed
to master.

Andreas

Message #27 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 76044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>,
 Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, iyzsong <at> envs.net, 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: After the merge is before the merge
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 12:54:59 -0400

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:52 AM Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr> wrote:
>
> The qt-team branch has also reopened and gone to the front of the queue,
> since it had been waiting longer and just been suspended while waiting
> for core-packages-team, on which it depends, to let other branches go to
> the front.

Yes, and likely a good thing since the qt-build-system inherits from
the cmake-build-system which is the focus of the c++-team branch.

The qt-team branch is rebased off the latest commit on master rather
than the latest processed commit so is showing the dreaded "Merge base
has not been processed by the data service yet".

> The c++-team branch has started on CI as well:
>    https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/c++-team
> but I am rather puzzled by the outcome.
> The page itself shows an enormous number of failed packages in the red
> box (almost all of them, plus some that are still in progress); when
> clicking on the red box, I find packages such as ocaml that failed their
> test phase with 0 failed tests. On the other hand, when clicking on the
> dashboard (the monitor symbol to the right), almost all packages are
> either green or transparent, and when one clicks on a transparent dot,
> it shows the build as scheduled. But I know very little about CI.

It is helpful that the ci dashboard can select for a single
architecture, but is there a way to compare against the merge base as
with qa? On master we are concerned with the state of all packages,
but on team branches is there any other question than to find the
newly failing packages relative to the base commit?

Greg

Message #30 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Cc: 76044 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>,
 Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, iyzsong <at> envs.net, 76899 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: After the merge is before the merge
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 19:02:22 +0200

Am Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 12:54:59PM -0400 schrieb Greg Hogan:
> The qt-team branch is rebased off the latest commit on master rather
> than the latest processed commit so is showing the dreaded "Merge base
> has not been processed by the data service yet".

Yes, but the latest commits on master are also Qt related, so we need
to wait and maybe rebase on the first commit that will have been
processed after that.

> It is helpful that the ci dashboard can select for a single
> architecture, but is there a way to compare against the merge base as
> with qa? On master we are concerned with the state of all packages,
> but on team branches is there any other question than to find the
> newly failing packages relative to the base commit?

I do not think so, I have the impression that it is always with respect
to the previous commit on the same branch.

Andreas

Message #33 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim <at> guixotic.coop>
Subject: Rebase required
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:20:25 +0200

Hello,

I have just pushed qt-teams to master, and your branch is second in
line. Could you maybe rebase it?

Thanks,

Andreas

Message #38 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim <at> guixotic.coop>, Ian Eure <ian <at> retrospec.tv>
Subject: Re: Rebase required
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 09:34:48 +0200

Hello,

the c++-team branch has been merged, so it will soon be your turn after
go-team. Could you please rebase? There has not been a rebase after the
core-packages-team and qt-team merges, so if I do not hear back, I will
close this issue.

Adding Ian in cc, since I see librewolf related commits in this branch
and they have authored the commit updating nss. This may have to be
updated again given the time that has passed since the branch was
created.

See also https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/pulls/400 .

Thanks,

Andreas

Message #41 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim <at> guixotic.coop>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: Ian Eure <ian <at> retrospec.tv>, 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Rebase required
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2025 11:19:22 +0900

Hi,

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

> Hello,
>
> the c++-team branch has been merged, so it will soon be your turn after
> go-team. Could you please rebase? There has not been a rebase after the
> core-packages-team and qt-team merges, so if I do not hear back, I will
> close this issue.

I rebased that nss-updates branch yesterday.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #44 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim <at> guixotic.coop>
Cc: Ian Eure <ian <at> retrospec.tv>, 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Rebase required
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 09:38:20 +0200

Am Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 11:19:22AM +0900 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
> I rebased that nss-updates branch yesterday.

Great, thanks!

The go-team branch advances incredibly slowly; I think QA does not
submit jobs as it should, but only Chris can debug this. We will have
to discuss tooling after the summer, this is really holding us back,
even more so than lack of human power (which is also an issue).

Andreas

Message #47 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim <at> guixotic.coop>
Cc: Ian Eure <ian <at> retrospec.tv>, 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Rebase required
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 09:39:56 +0200

Am Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 09:38:20AM +0200 schrieb Andreas Enge:
> The go-team branch advances incredibly slowly; I think QA does not
> submit jobs as it should

Or we are stuck in the initial phase where the first go packages close
to the root of the changes are built one after the other, before
building fans out. Difficult to say!

Andreas

Message #50 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim <at> guixotic.coop>
Cc: Ian Eure <ian <at> retrospec.tv>, mail <at> cbaines.net, 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Rebase required
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2025 19:15:27 +0200

Hello,

I thought I would try something new, and rebase the nss-updates branch
directly on the go-team branch. We are at least a few days from merging
the former, but in the end this should make the second branch in line
start faster, since it will already be evaluated on a commit known to
the data service, and which will be essentially the new state of master.

So the second branch should directly start with meaningful package builds.

I have rebased on 7ca1cb9db6c3e6c6ca8158a02275ef204957180d , the current
head of go-team. In case I made a thinko and we need the previous branch,
it is still available under the name of nss-updates-on master.

Andreas

Message #53 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim <at> guixotic.coop>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: Ian Eure <ian <at> retrospec.tv>, mail <at> cbaines.net, 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Rebase required
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2025 11:24:22 +0900

Hi,

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

> Hello,
>
> I thought I would try something new, and rebase the nss-updates branch
> directly on the go-team branch. We are at least a few days from merging
> the former, but in the end this should make the second branch in line
> start faster, since it will already be evaluated on a commit known to
> the data service, and which will be essentially the new state of master.
>
> So the second branch should directly start with meaningful package builds.
>
> I have rebased on 7ca1cb9db6c3e6c6ca8158a02275ef204957180d , the current
> head of go-team. In case I made a thinko and we need the previous branch,
> it is still available under the name of nss-updates-on master.

OK, sounds reasonable given the current difficulties with getting
branches built.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Message #56 received at 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim <at> guixotic.coop>
Cc: Ian Eure <ian <at> retrospec.tv>, mail <at> cbaines.net, 78689 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Rebase required
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 09:50:01 +0200

Hello,

actually it occurred to me that rebasing branch 2 directly on branch 1
could speed things up even more. Assuming that branch 2 has no problems,
but just needs to be built for substitutes, then while branch 1 is built
on QA, branch 2 will already be built on CI in parallel. So essentially,
we can merge the two at the same time. So we could piggy-back a branch
which should not break anything on a branch that may be a bit more risky.

CI has found a problem with nss-updates:
   https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/2077455/log/raw\
(exception unbound-variable (value #f) (value "Unbound variable: ~S") (value (nss-certs-for-test)) (value #f))

I could reproduce it locally like this:
$ ./pre-inst-env guix package -A nss
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1752:10 19 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In unknown file:
          18 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7f75647112a0>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
    724:2 17 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handle…>)
In ice-9/eval.scm:
    619:8 16 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7f7564716c80>)))
In guix/ui.scm:
   2399:7 15 (run-guix . _)
  2362:10 14 (run-guix-command _ . _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1752:10 13 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In guix/scripts/package.scm:
   850:26 12 (_)
In guix/discovery.scm:
    188:3 11 (fold-module-public-variables _ _ _)
In guix/combinators.scm:
    48:26 10 (fold2 #<procedure 7f7561a0c5a0 at guix/discovery.scm:…> …)
    48:26  9 (fold2 #<procedure 7f753bf424a0 at guix/discovery.scm:…> …)
In guix/discovery.scm:
   191:33  8 (_ #<package cobib <at> 5.3.0 gnu/packages/textutils.scm:12…> …)
In gnu/packages.scm:
   236:37  7 (_ #<package cobib <at> 5.3.0 gnu/packages/textutils.scm:12…> …)
In guix/packages.scm:
  1444:17  6 (supported-package? #<package cobib <at> 5.3.0 gnu/packages…> …)
In guix/memoization.scm:
    101:0  5 (_ #<hash-table 7f7561a2efa0 38833/56197> #<package co…> …)
In guix/packages.scm:
  1422:39  4 (_)
  1692:16  3 (package->bag _ _ _ #:graft? _)
  1796:47  2 (thunk)
In gnu/packages/textutils.scm:
  1325:11  1 (native-inputs #<package cobib <at> 5.3.0 gnu/packages/textu…>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1685:16  0 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)

ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
error: nss-certs-for-test: unbound variable

Andreas

Previous Next

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