* Re: time-bomb and CI? (was bug#69800: kcalendarcore time-bomb)
2024-05-06 11:53 ` time-bomb and CI? (was bug#69800: kcalendarcore time-bomb) Simon Tournier
@ 2024-05-06 16:46 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2024-05-14 9:51 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Vagrant Cascadian @ 2024-05-06 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Tournier, Guix Devel
Cc: iyzsong, rg, vivien, liliana.prikler, maxim.cournoyer
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]
On 2024-05-06, Simon Tournier wrote:
> -------------------- Start of forwarded message --------------------
> Subject: bug#69800: kcalendarcore is a time bomb
> To: 69800@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:20:43 +0100
> From: Vivien Kraus via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org>
>
> Dear Guix,
>
> Kcalendarcore does not build anymore. According to CI, it stopped
> working this march, on gnome-team and rust-branch (I can’t build it
> either on master).
>
> http://ci.guix.gnu.org/search?query=kcalendarcore
>
> Best regards,
>
> Vivien
> -------------------- End of forwarded message --------------------
>
> and this fix:
>
> * gnu/packages/kde-frameworks.scm (kcalendarcore) [#:phases]: Add
> 'disable-failing-test.
>
> My question is: Could we automatically detect by CI such time-related
> test?
>
>
> Other said, would it be possible to have one (or more) node that build
> with a date in the future? Say 3 years. In Bordeaux? Or in Berlin?
> Using the “Dolorean VM” [2], it could be nice to setup one node.
This would also be good for checking reproducible builds, as time is one
of the harder things to normalize in the guix (or any) build
environment!
I would recommend using some padded days, e.g. 3 x 365 days + 31 days +
1 day (leap years) + 1 day (for good measure), as this maximises the
chance that embedded day, month and year will always be different.
> PS: Do we speak about bug of year 2038? ;-)
Either speak now or wait for the inevitible! :)
live well,
vagrant
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: time-bomb and CI? (was bug#69800: kcalendarcore time-bomb)
2024-05-06 11:53 ` time-bomb and CI? (was bug#69800: kcalendarcore time-bomb) Simon Tournier
2024-05-06 16:46 ` Vagrant Cascadian
@ 2024-05-14 9:51 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2024-05-14 9:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Tournier
Cc: Guix Devel, iyzsong, rg, vivien, liliana.prikler, maxim.cournoyer
Hi,
Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:
> Other said, would it be possible to have one (or more) node that build
> with a date in the future? Say 3 years. In Bordeaux? Or in Berlin?
> Using the “Dolorean VM” [2], it could be nice to setup one node.
[...]
> https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2024/adventures-on-the-quest-for-long-term-reproducible-deployment
Yes!
As I wrote in the blog post above, I think the best way to help get
there is to work on optimizing the ‘virtual-build-machine’ service a
bit, along the lines noted in the blog post above (SSH over AF_VSOCK,
guest store overlaid over the host store itself mounted as virtiofs,
etc.).
The second best way is to propose a patch against maintenance.git adding
‘virtual-build-machine’ services to some of the build machines (similar
to how we add childhurds to some of them) so we can start experimenting.
It’ll be kinda random—some builds will be offloaded to the VMs, some
won’t—but it’s a start.
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread