From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: 01/01: gnu: boost: Update to 1.58.0. Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:03:50 -0400 Message-ID: <87io9rn5jt.fsf@netris.org> References: <20150708211909.12880.83730@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <87mvz6kzw6.fsf@netris.org> <87a8v5ng8o.fsf@netris.org> <20150709231755.GA16506@debian> <87mvz4lzuf.fsf@netris.org> <20150710192556.GA3066@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53944) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDeWh-0006d6-3n for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:04:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDeWc-0006zC-BM for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:04:03 -0400 Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:44232) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDeWc-0006yt-8F for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:03:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150710192556.GA3066@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:25:56 +0200") 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: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Andreas Enge writes: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:52:24PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: >> I'm not 100% sure what's happening either, but more packages are >> becoming broken over time. I think it has to do with the fact that >> 'git' is one of the broken packages, and other packages that fetch their >> source code using 'git' are becoming broken whenever Guix decides it's >> time to try re-downloading the source, e.g.: > > Okay, that is an interesting explanation! > >> I've reverted the patch. After we have a solution to this problem, we >> can build it in a separate branch. I think we should have done this >> anyway, since updating Boost entails a lot of rebuilds, and has a >> history of being problematic on non-Intel platforms. > > With only 69 dependent packages, it did not look like a big risk! It's definitely more than that. As I recall, Hydra had to do on the order of 600 rebuilds after your boost update. This is a case where "guix refresh -l" is way off. > It just built with the patch on my mips machine: > Performing configuration checks > > - 32-bit : yes > - arm : no > - mips1 : no > - power : no > - sparc : no > - x86 : no > - combined : no > I still find it suspicious that it is not recognised as "mips1"; it may > have to do with the different ABIs, since when I build it on debian, > it says "mips1 : yes". Yes, it might have to do with that. Debian uses the O32 ABI. > I will push this to a wip-boost branch, and try to build a dependent package > locally. I wonder if I should base wip-boost on openssl-update; but with > only 69 dependent packages (if the count is true), it probably does not > matter. Can we do this on core-updates instead? I'm currently working on a core-updates branch. I will push it soon, after I've done some basic testing on it. Hydra is already overloaded trying to rebuild the openssl-update jobset, and now it will have more to do since I reverted boost on master and rebased openssl-update on that. I want to get openssl-update built ASAP. What do you think? Mark