Error in compiling fontutils.scm

Error in compiling fontutils.scm

[Andreas Enge]

Right now, the following error occurs when compiling fontconfig.scm:

$ make gnu/packages/fontutils.go

/bin/mkdir -p `dirname "gnu/packages/fontutils.go"` ;                   \
        LC_ALL=C                                                        \
        ./pre-inst-env                                  \
        /usr/bin/guild compile -L "." -L "."    \
          -Wformat -Wunbound-variable -Warity-mismatch                  \
          --target="x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"                                           
\
          -o "gnu/packages/fontutils.go" "gnu/packages/fontutils.scm"
Backtrace:
In ice-9/psyntax.scm:
 986: 19 [scan ((define-module (gnu packages xorg) #:use-module ...)) () 
...]
 270: 18 [scan ((#(syntax-object let # ...) (#) (# #) ...)) () ...]
In ice-9/eval.scm:
 392: 17 [eval # ()]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
2667: 16 [define-module* (gnu packages xorg) #:filename ...]
2642: 15 [resolve-imports (# # # # ...)]
2580: 14 [resolve-interface (gnu packages glib) #:select ...]
2505: 13 [#<procedure 17e6940 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:2493:4 (name #:optional 
autoload version #:key ensure)> # ...]
2772: 12 [try-module-autoload (gnu packages glib) #f]
2111: 11 [save-module-excursion #<procedure 2b7f990 at 
ice-9/boot-9.scm:2773:17 ()>]
2783: 10 [#<procedure 2b7f990 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:2773:17 ()>]
In unknown file:
   ?: 9 [primitive-load-path "gnu/packages/glib" #f]
In ice-9/eval.scm:
 407: 8 [eval # ()]
 428: 7 [eval # ()]
 407: 6 [eval # #]
 411: 5 [eval # #]
 368: 4 [eval # #]
 368: 3 [eval # #]
 374: 2 [eval # #]
In unknown file:
   ?: 1 [memoize-variable-access! # #]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
 106: 0 [#<procedure 1924b40 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:97:6 (thrown-k . args)> 
unbound-variable ...]

ice-9/boot-9.scm:106:20: In procedure #<procedure 1924b40 at 
ice-9/boot-9.scm:97:6 (thrown-k . args)>:
ice-9/boot-9.scm:106:20: Unbound variable: perl-xml-parser
make: *** [gnu/packages/fontutils.go] Fehler 1

It is rather mysterious, since fontconfig has not been changed for over a 
month. And how do xorg and glib enter the picture?

Any help would ne appreciated.

Andreas

Re: Error in compiling fontutils.scm

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> $ make gnu/packages/fontutils.go
>
> /bin/mkdir -p `dirname "gnu/packages/fontutils.go"` ;                   \
>         LC_ALL=C                                                        \
>         ./pre-inst-env                                  \
>         /usr/bin/guild compile -L "." -L "."    \
>           -Wformat -Wunbound-variable -Warity-mismatch                  \
>           --target="x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu"                                           
> \
>           -o "gnu/packages/fontutils.go" "gnu/packages/fontutils.scm"
> Backtrace:
> In ice-9/psyntax.scm:
>  986: 19 [scan ((define-module (gnu packages xorg) #:use-module ...)) () 
> ...]
>  270: 18 [scan ((#(syntax-object let # ...) (#) (# #) ...)) () ...]
> In ice-9/eval.scm:
>  392: 17 [eval # ()]
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
> 2667: 16 [define-module* (gnu packages xorg) #:filename ...]
> 2642: 15 [resolve-imports (# # # # ...)]
> 2580: 14 [resolve-interface (gnu packages glib) #:select ...]
> 2505: 13 [#<procedure 17e6940 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:2493:4 (name #:optional 
> autoload version #:key ensure)> # ...]
> 2772: 12 [try-module-autoload (gnu packages glib) #f]
> 2111: 11 [save-module-excursion #<procedure 2b7f990 at 
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:2773:17 ()>]
> 2783: 10 [#<procedure 2b7f990 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:2773:17 ()>]
> In unknown file:
>    ?: 9 [primitive-load-path "gnu/packages/glib" #f]
> In ice-9/eval.scm:
>  407: 8 [eval # ()]
>  428: 7 [eval # ()]
>  407: 6 [eval # #]
>  411: 5 [eval # #]
>  368: 4 [eval # #]
>  368: 3 [eval # #]
>  374: 2 [eval # #]
> In unknown file:
>    ?: 1 [memoize-variable-access! # #]
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>  106: 0 [#<procedure 1924b40 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:97:6 (thrown-k . args)> 
> unbound-variable ...]
>
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:106:20: In procedure #<procedure 1924b40 at 
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:97:6 (thrown-k . args)>:
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:106:20: Unbound variable: perl-xml-parser
> make: *** [gnu/packages/fontutils.go] Fehler 1

I believe this is fixed by 6d267f0.  There was a circular dependency
between the ghostscript and xorg modules, introduced in commit e0eb886,
and leading to this admittedly obscure backtrace.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: Error in compiling fontutils.scm

[Andreas Enge]

Am Dienstag, 7. Mai 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> I believe this is fixed by 6d267f0.  There was a circular dependency
> between the ghostscript and xorg modules, introduced in commit e0eb886,
> and leading to this admittedly obscure backtrace.

Excellent, thanks for your help! One suggestion: Could maybe ghostscript-
with-x be moved to ghostscript.scm?

$ guix package -A ghostscript
ghostscript     9.06.0  out     gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm:121:2
ghostscript-with-x      9.06.0  out     gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm:121:2

This is probably due to its inheritance from ghostscript in the given file.

Andreas

Re: Error in compiling fontutils.scm

[Ludovic Courtès]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> skribis:

> Am Dienstag, 7. Mai 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> I believe this is fixed by 6d267f0.  There was a circular dependency
>> between the ghostscript and xorg modules, introduced in commit e0eb886,
>> and leading to this admittedly obscure backtrace.
>
> Excellent, thanks for your help! One suggestion: Could maybe ghostscript-
> with-x be moved to ghostscript.scm?

No, because the idea of moving it to a separate file was precisely to
get rid of the X/Ghostscript circular dependency.

> $ guix package -A ghostscript
> ghostscript     9.06.0  out     gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm:121:2
> ghostscript-with-x      9.06.0  out     gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm:121:2
>
> This is probably due to its inheritance from ghostscript in the given file.

Yes, exactly.  This can be fixed by explicitly passing a different
‘location’ field.

Ludo’.

Re: Error in compiling fontutils.scm

[Andreas Enge]

Am Dienstag, 7. Mai 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> No, because the idea of moving it to a separate file was precisely to
> get rid of the X/Ghostscript circular dependency.

Ah, I thought this was already solved by having two separate packages.

Andreas