From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#18935: gexp->derivation test failure Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 21:03:41 +0100 Message-ID: <87r3xh4dpe.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h9yg704p.fsf@netris.org> <8761euafbb.fsf@gnu.org> <87y4rqabe4.fsf@netris.org> <87k3396abj.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3xha9xr.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48219) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xm6oJ-0005GN-KG for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:04:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xm6oE-0006eq-95 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:04:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:53198) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xm6oE-0006ea-5J for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:04:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xm6oD-0008NP-Q2 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 15:04:01 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87r3xha9xr.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 05 Nov 2014 11:28:32 -0500") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Cc: 18935@debbugs.gnu.org Mark H Weaver skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> Mark H Weaver skribis: >> >>> The same failure happened to me in two consecutive build attempts: >>> once when running "guix system build", and then again when running >>> "guix build -K guix" so that I could get the failed test logs. >> >> Oh, that=E2=80=99s surprising. I=E2=80=99ve not stumbled upon it in my = working tree, >> and it has not failed on Hydra: > > Update: the same failure has happened to me in *five* consecutive build > attempts. Then either I was mistaken and there=E2=80=99s another bug hiding, or sched= uling and I/O are very much deterministic. You=E2=80=99re not using --cache-failures, are you? > I guess I'll have to add another local patch (to update guix in guix) > to get my system updated. Then could you try adding just applying 834ea02? TIA, Ludo=E2=80=99.