From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Bakke Subject: Re: Let's fix core-updates! Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 12:26:15 +0100 Message-ID: <877erldr1k.fsf@fastmail.com> References: <876075pne8.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59052) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ekTIV-0007J2-Lb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:26:28 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ekTIS-0007bc-S5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:26:23 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:55277) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ekTIS-0007ZN-LN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:26:20 -0500 In-Reply-To: <876075pne8.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Chris Marusich , guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Chris Marusich writes: > Hi everyone! > > Currently, 13% of builds on core-updates fail: > > https://hydra.gnu.org/jobset/gnu/core-updates > > We need to fix this to help Ricardo prepare for the next release. > Questions: > > 1) When is core-updates "done"? Do we merge once we're below a > specific failure rate, once specific bugs have been fixed, or a > combination of the two? Typically a combination. Packages with many dependents usually get fixed first, then once we're down to mostly "leaf" packages, if they are not hugely popular (say GNOME, or SLiM), we can merge and deal with the remainder on 'master'. Right now, the biggest blockers are: * Shepherd on armhf: It's an indeterministic failure, but happens nearly every build. This is fixed in Shepherd git, but not yet in Guix. Once the Hydra build succeeds, we need to restart the builds for all of Shepherds dependent packages in order to get substitutes for them. At this point, we might consider applying the upstream fix directly for armhf only. Then we don't have to manually restart the dependent jobs, since that would create a new derivation and Hydra will make new jobs. * ruby-sqlite3: I filed an issue upstream here: . It seems harmless, so I guess we can s/integer/INTEGER/ and move on. * SBCL: I don't know anything about this package, so not sure what to do about it. It has 45 dependents, including MATE, so merging without it is not great. I tried updating to the latest version, which made the build succeed, but then many of the dependent packages failed. * python-django: This version of Django is fairly old and riddled with security holes, so I'm willing to "punt" on this and let Django users fix it when it hits 'master'. Here I also tried updating to the latest LTS, but got some odd and very difficult test failures. In addition, there are many "leaf" Python packages that are failing, which is typical when we go from 3.5->3.6. Updating usually solves it. Note that we have a bug with python2-flake8: if you see a python2 variant failing due to missing "enum34", it will have to be added as a propagated-input until we can fix it in flake8 proper. See these commits: Most of the currently failing Python packages can be fixed after the merge IMO, as they don't have a lot of dependents. But don't let that stop anyone from fixing them now :-) > 2) How shall we prioritize and divvy up work for fixing the failures? > I'm guessing people just need to volunteer and start debugging! I encourage everyone to check the Hydra core-updates page every now and then, press "compare" and choose "master" and go on the "currently failing" tab. If you recognize any of the failing packages, please try to fix them :-) Here is the comparison for the latest evaluation (this might not load since Hydra is currently very busy): . > 3) Are there any tools to help us understand what the failures might > have in common? E.g., if half the failures occur because a package > deep in the dependency graph fails to build, clearly that package > should be prioritized for fixing. I suppose we'll learn about > commonalities as we go, but it'd be nice if there were a tool that > might help us understand what to focus on first. On the "currently failing" tab, only those with a bright red icon are failing. Most of the jobs have an orange icon which means a dependency failed. Clicking on the job will show you which dependency that is. > 4) What other bugs/features need to be addressed to un-block release? I believe most of the "hard" problems this round have been addressed, so now we just need the fixes mentioned above. That said, please try to pull core-updates on your systems to make sure :-) > I know that we want to update the default JDK used by Java packages from > 7 to 8, but there are probably more important tasks to finish up, also. We don't have a lot of Java dependents still, so IMO this can be done on 'master' (if everything builds) or maybe 'staging' for testing all arches. > Let's get started! I'm going on a road trip for a few days, so thanks for picking up this thread. I hope this branch is merged when I get back! --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlp+1tcACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPr1DwgAh8kD+PhciJDXc5Kv+ZsmqwLrdeyq1wiMspGfPEdlb2OCY/bweHNFWe+d z4muhmwfl5Hf/c1YGfC/lY0yM15BCVHA1FmU3LTDh8OSU2aH0lVePtpBi0HMX+LA ijg3d66SgpexOjDfHzp/4RAkx9MUIRS5zUJRipEw7wWZDEWCYWA2dPWrCbGQvxci 5YY2zZVo5/0KMiLyKovVz3RQZlykAP/RDSt8asdYzIia4fIlEFifUP7hsBm7+qq2 F4Drn7+J9fSuDGCS/yNaAl0N/WhLJtzGI+qssEVdWm1EhxozOFsB4Y9btTs11drl L+rJFrV7ubfxRmUOlhC4KZ3bCU4xKA== =q2YL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--