Maxim Cournoyer writes: > A first RC for the upcoming 1.3.0 release is now available for testing I tested the binary for powerpc64le-linux on a Debian 10 ppc64el system. It seems to be behaving as well as I expected it to. Thank you for preparing it! On powerpc64le-linux, the installation script worked fine (I ran it while logged into the root account via "su --login"). However, when I ran "guix pull" (without substitutes, of course, since those are not yet available for this platform), I encountered an error: building /gnu/store/6ljrcy6pd2g5c02gkfdj1zxca3ybpg18-texlive-latex-amscls-51265.drv... - 'build' phaseBacktrace: 13 (primitive-load "/gnu/store/ylynparc7pjhyxkcs9p1kwqa09an3vba-compute-guix-derivation") In ice-9/eval.scm: 155:9 12 (_ _) 159:9 11 (_ #(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(# ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?)) In ice-9/boot-9.scm: 152:2 10 (with-fluid* _ _ _) 152:2 9 (with-fluid* _ _ _) In ./guix/store.scm: 2066:24 8 (run-with-store # _ #:guile-for-build _ #:system _ #:target _) 1900:8 7 (_ _) In ./guix/gexp.scm: 256:18 6 (_ _) 1137:2 5 (_ _) 1003:2 4 (_ _) 849:4 3 (_ _) In ./guix/store.scm: 1948:12 2 (_ #) 1362:5 1 (map/accumulate-builds # _ _) 1373:15 0 (_ # _ _) ./guix/store.scm:1373:15: ERROR: 1. &store-protocol-error: message: "build of `/gnu/store/xfkrpagvnpc4xz43b6za80qrvnlsb8f0-po4a-0.61.drv' failed" status: 100 guix pull: error: You found a bug: the program '/gnu/store/ylynparc7pjhyxkcs9p1kwqa09an3vba-compute-guix-derivation' failed to compute the derivation for Guix (version: "fcd002ccfa3a2bf28a9d05ab2992464afc6e5fca"; system: "powerpc64le-linux"; host version: "1.3.0rc1"; pull-version: 1). Please report it by email to . When I tried building /gnu/store/xfkrpagvnpc4xz43b6za80qrvnlsb8f0-po4a-0.61.drv a second time, it succeeded: guix build --cores=1 \ --max-jobs=1 \ --keep-failed \ /gnu/store/xfkrpagvnpc4xz43b6za80qrvnlsb8f0-po4a-0.61.drv I was then able to successfully run "guix pull" a second time. After that, I successfully built GNU Hello via "guix build hello" and ran it. So, everything seems OK, except for the non-deterministic po4a failure. I wonder if the po4a failure affects other architectures, but maybe it just isn't noticed because most people use substitutes. As far as I can tell, the po4a failure has not been reported in our bug tracker. If I can reproduce the issue, I'll open a bug report for it. -- Chris