From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kyle Meyer Subject: bug#33922: failing git-annex build Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2019 15:12:38 -0500 Message-ID: <87sgy6oocp.fsf@kyleam.com> References: <87h8evvjr2.fsf@kyleam.com> <87bm53gs9w.fsf@elephly.net> <87ftuazoz5.fsf@ngyro.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggsout.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:32947 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gfsJj-0007Gi-LM for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 15:13:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gfsJc-0007e6-Fx for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 15:13:09 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:33059) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gfsJa-0007Xy-14 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 15:13:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gfsJZ-0000ov-KT for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Jan 2019 15:13:01 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87ftuazoz5.fsf@ngyro.com> 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" To: Timothy Sample , Ricardo Wurmus Cc: 33922@debbugs.gnu.org Timothy Sample writes: > Hi, > > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > >> [...] >> >> It seems to me that this is a more general problem affecting all of our >> Haskell packages. The configure phase that you didn=E2=80=99t paste sho= uld show >> that modules are provided by slightly different packages. >> >> The haskell-build-system suffers from non-determinism. It might just be >> limited to the package database files that are generated by ghc-pkg >> (where readdir is used and the result isn=E2=80=99t sorted). > > This is exactly the problem. I=E2=80=99ve attached a patch that should f= ix > this. Unfortunately, I kind of rediscovered this from scratch, so for > the sake of completeness, here=E2=80=99s all the details of what I found. > [...] Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to write up this analysis.