From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id AKX9L10Ze18AQQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 13:02:21 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id ANfjK10Ze1+jCwAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 13:02:21 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6397A94062D for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 13:02:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:42762 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQ8C-0002qO-62 for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:02:20 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41108) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQ81-0002pv-EQ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:02:09 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:50951) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kPQ7v-0001rk-BJ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2020 09:02:07 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B63F72400FD for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:01:57 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1601902917; bh=E2h0+9DiJGKzh16/LB9AmhtxE1MfmUoMKnoBlDefHYo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=aiQoMrw/rt7J+HUiBftHVU/0MfRcSuHAqNEAPP7FCqfwG74kxjGYonKzY3c6EB+O1 XBsAXpS00pZqUObI/1r7D98D80gEXcpt42MvKoyu4popcKlvhWPP9NfYQ6AV3/pQu/ X0iFqjQEambMbZj9eERkKIwpxpjOT4oPjd0p6JcW0h9DIeup6Vrf41BhB5lVsbfnNh ZpzlXm/6VGZ4tbAwdL1xj+jXCYladNx25evxY7Hj1hgfCnVnBaFXsbwy0axiPHMusr Aqe97c9w0HyoD0l9pjwy8kvHgKiSHb41zd1kiuAUeD4cGTsTxVQTspLUgWnE30DiCG SUJzi5kc8nNFQ== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4C4gjJ08NRz9rxB; Mon, 5 Oct 2020 15:01:55 +0200 (CEST) References: <87a6xeura2.fsf@yamatai> <877ds42760.fsf@gnu.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.1 From: Guillaume Le Vaillant To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: Failing CI evaluation for staging branch In-reply-to: <877ds42760.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 15:01:53 +0200 Message-ID: <87y2kk7rni.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=glv@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/05 09:01:58 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=posteo.net header.s=2017 header.b=aiQoMrw/; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=posteo.net; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -3.31 X-TUID: Ja4MI5ZpLbxY --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ludovic Court=C3=A8s skribis: > Hi Guillaume, > > Guillaume Le Vaillant skribis: > >> Currently no substitutes are built for the testing branch because the >> evaluation fails. The log at https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/16794/log/raw >> ends with: > > You mean the =E2=80=98staging=E2=80=99 branch? > Yes, I meant 'staging'. I often type 'testing' instead of 'staging', probably that pesky muscle memory!. >> guix/inferior.scm:247:2: ERROR: >> 1. &inferior-exception: >> arguments: (keyword-argument-error #f "Unrecognized keyword" () (#= :builder)) >> inferior: #< pid: pipe socket: # close: # version: (0 1 1) packages: #= > table: #= >> >> stack: ((#f ("ice-9/boot-9.scm" 1763 13)) (raise-exception ("ice-9= /boot-9.scm" 1666 16)) (raise-exception ("ice-9/boot-9.scm" 1668 16)) (#f (= "guix/build-system/asdf.scm" 279 2)) (thunk ("guix/packages.scm" 1397 22)) = (package-derivation ("guix/packages.scm" 1079 16)) (job ("gnu/ci.scm" 383 2= 4)) (filter-map ("srfi/srfi-1.scm" 690 23)) (#f ("gnu/ci.scm" 497 31)) (map= 1 ("srfi/srfi-1.scm" 585 17)) (append-map ("srfi/srfi-1.scm" 672 15)) (hydr= a-jobs ("gnu/ci.scm" 482 4)) (#f ("ice-9/eval.scm" 158 9)) (#f ("ice-9/eval= .scm" 158 9)) (with-exception-handler ("ice-9/boot-9.scm" 1735 10)) (call-w= ith-prompt ("ice-9/boot-9.scm" 717 2)) (dynamic-wind ("ice-9/boot-9.scm" 14= 1 2)) (#f (#f #f #f)) (#f ("guix/repl.scm" 92 21)) (with-exception-handler = ("ice-9/boot-9.scm" 1735 10)) (with-exception-handler ("ice-9/boot-9.scm" 1= 730 15)) (#f ("guix/repl.scm" 119 7))) >> >> If I understand this correctly, there's a '#:builder' keyword somewhere >> that is causing a problem. Does someone know where it can come from, or >> how to fix the issue? > > Right. I=E2=80=99d look at guix/build-system/asdf.scm:279:2 on that bran= ch (per > the inferior stack trace above). Does that give useful info? I didn't see any obvious problem in that file; the strange thing is that 'make', 'make as-derivation' and './pre-inst-env guix build ...' all work fine. In a local branch I merged the current master (3699ed6) into staging (de96ed1) and I'm going to try to start a local cuirass daemon to see wether I can reproduce the issue or not. Given that merging master in staging hasn't been done in a while, should I also push my updated staging branch, or maybe someone is already working on it? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iIUEAREKAC0WIQTLxZxm7Ce5cXlAaz5r6CCK3yH+PwUCX3sZQQ8cZ2x2QHBvc3Rl by5uZXQACgkQa+ggit8h/j+RvQD6Azr2bSiV4tie4HvecL7Atowaa2t2zKP2qdUw BJQCKHwA/1x99rPX7Qe2fapWYfEH/Zh3AH3y21tXOo1ommQw8RN2 =Z1uv -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--