bug#68229: go.powerpc64le-linux 1.14.15 fails test suite

[Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>]

On January 10, 2024 4:31:07 AM UTC, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>reopen 68229
>quit
>
>Hi,
>
>Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:
>
>> On January 3, 2024 5:59:22 PM UTC, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 11:29:50AM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> 
>>>>> cuirass@gnu.org (Cuirass) writes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> > <p>The build <b>go.powerpc64le-linux</b> for specification
>>>>> > <b>master</b> is broken. You can find the detailed information
>>>>> > about this build <a
>>>>> > href="https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/3139760/details">here</a>.</p>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/3139760/details
>>>>> 
>>>>> The test failure is:
>>>>> 
>>>>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>>>>> --- FAIL: TestScript (0.00s)
>>>>>     --- FAIL: TestScript/vendor_complex (2.07s)
>>>>>         script_test.go:193: 
>>>>>             # smoke test for complex build configuration (1.990s)
>>>>>             > go build -o complex.exe complex
>>>>>             > [exec:gccgo] go build -compiler=gccgo -o complex.exe complex
>>>>>             [stderr]
>>>>>             # complex
>>>>>             gccgo: error: unrecognized command-line option
>>>>> '-rpath=/gnu/store/qj6cnccz6vsffqa32rviw4zaqgh7xd6q-gcc-11.3.0-lib/lib'
>>>>>             [exit status 2]
>>>>>             FAIL: testdata/script/vendor_complex.txt:5: unexpected command failure
>>>>>             
>>>>> FAIL
>>>>> FAIL	cmd/go	46.068s
>>>>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't see an obvious relationship with the recent commit touching
>>>>> gccgo-12, but I'm CC'ing its author in case it could be.
>>>>
>>>> This one is go-1.14. That one already failed for ppc64le.
>>>
>>>OK; Cuirass got it wrong again.  Should we leave the ticket open though,
>>>since it's an actual problem?
>>>
>> Fine with me. We should probably remove go-1.14 anyway if nothing
>> depends on it. And either make it build on ppc64le or mark it not
>> supported otherwise.
>
>Alright, I'll leave this open for someone to pick up.  The task would be
>to remove go-1.14, incorporating it into go-1.16, which currently
>inherits from it.  Any takers?
>

https://issues.guix.gnu.org/68300

Although it currently rebuilds all go packages. I should probably fix that.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.