Re: Status of ‘core-updates’

[Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>]

Hi Ludo,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Since branches were merged in, I believe the problem we are facing at
>> the moment is librsvg failing its test suite with a segfault (!).  Could
>> be the glibc upgrade, or rust itself, I'm not sure.  I was trying to
>> upgrade librsvg, which needs an update anyway, but it pulls many rust
>> crates updates.  I'll get there eventually, if nobody beats me to it.
>
> Ouch, OK.  I guess it doesn’t hurt if several of us take a look and we
> share our findings here.
>
>>> Josselin, Maxim: could you explain what problems there are around
>>> pkgconf and what you would recommend?
>>
>> Nothing in particular to point at the moment, but remaining problems
>> would manifest in the form of missing inputs, due to transitive libtool
>> dependencies causing overlinking and the new pkgconf being smart enough
>> to optimize away some previously captured link directives that would be
>> baked in the RUNPATH and sastify libtool overlinking needs.
>>
>> The solution is to hunt the libtool .la files from the transitive
>> dependencies causing the problem and removing them. See commit
>> b6540bd285cbe5920ad379ddfc6256359ee7204c for an example.
>
> Good.  So it seems like we can move forward after all and just do the
> “normal” job and finding and fixing build failures along these lines.
>
> Do we need ci.guix to build more packages to facilitate testing and
> debugging?  That’s something I can help with (though I’ll be away for a
> week).

If we do this, and I believe it'd be useful, I think it'd help to fork a
'core-updates-frozen' and have the CI rebuild this one fully, leaving
'core-updates' open to business as usual.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim