From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Test failure when building libarchive-3.1.2 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 23:47:58 +0100 Message-ID: <87bnaoe19d.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h9koyfkr.fsf@gnu.org> <87twogixth.fsf@gnu.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]:37953) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZzuTL-0002ru-Qo for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:48:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZzuTI-0007ka-KK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 17:48:03 -0500 In-Reply-To: ("Jan \=\?utf-8\?B\?U3luw6HEjWVrIidz\?\= message of "Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:10:34 +0100") 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Jan =?utf-8?B?U3luw6HEjWVr?= Cc: guix-devel Jan Syn=C3=A1=C4=8Dek skribis: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrot= e: >> Jan Syn=C3=A1=C4=8Dek skribis: >> >>> On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s w= rote: [...] >>>> It would be nice to see if this systematically fails. If it is >>>> non-deterministic, we should build it with --keep-failed until it fails >>>> (removing successful builds with =E2=80=98guix gc -d=E2=80=99), collec= t useful info from >>>> the build tree, and debug. [...] >> I noticed that libarchive uses =E2=80=98readdir=E2=80=99 calls as-is, wi= thout sorting >> directory entries afterwards. Thus, the order of directory entries is >> effectively non-deterministic and may change depending on the phase of >> the moon. >> >> This has been reported at: >> >> https://github.com/libarchive/libarchive/issues/602 >> >> Could you add the patch that=E2=80=99s given at that URL to the =E2=80= =98patches=E2=80=99 field >> or libarchive=E2=80=99s =E2=80=98origin=E2=80=99 form and see if the pro= blem shows up again, >> preferably building several times in a row? > > I built it once and it passed (note that it failed *everytime* I > wanted to build it). So this patch appears to solve the issue? > Maybe a dumb question, but how do I force a rebuild of an already > built package?:) You can=E2=80=99t rebuild packages because build processes are assumed to be deterministic. However, you can delete a build result with =E2=80=98gc -d= =E2=80=99, as mentioned above, and rebuild it afterwards. HTH, Ludo=E2=80=99.