From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: =?utf-8?B?4oCYc3RhZ2luZ+KAmQ==?= and GNOME updates Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 22:52:49 +0200 Message-ID: <87zhpaydem.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <871s3a4xd4.fsf@gnu.org> <87wokjyuw4.fsf@fastmail.com> <87muld8xuo.fsf@gnu.org> <87y34xzez8.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46593) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hAhRl-0008Ut-0t for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 Mar 2019 16:52:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87y34xzez8.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Fri, 29 Mar 2019 19:56:43 +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" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: Guix-devel Hi! Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > >>> I don't think we should release 1.0 until at least >>> and are >>> fixed. Trying a new distribution only to find your favourite programs >>> are crashing would be a _terrible_ first impression. >> >> Do we have any leads on this IceCat issue? I use IceCat daily and never >> have any problems of this sort, FWIW. > > I=E2=80=99ve seen something like this before, but *only* on i686 machines= . I > never managed to figure out why. It looks like Mark fixed this in bc91562939ee002e84c95d13c907482b6d1e9339. \o/ > One of the GNOME update branches (for 2.28?) has already been merged > into staging. There are rumours of crashes, though, so this will > require testing by more people. OK, so I guess we should first focus on getting =E2=80=98staging=E2=80=99 t= ested and merged. x86_64 substitutes on ci.guix.info cover 60% of the packages right now. The main issue is that libdrm has one test failure (see ): --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- starting phase `check' [0/1] Running all tests. 1/16 kms-symbol-check OK 0.12 s=20 2/16 gen4-3d.batch OK 0.04 s=20 3/16 gen45-3d.batch OK 0.04 s=20 4/16 gen5-3d.batch OK 0.04 s=20 5/16 gen6-3d.batch OK 0.04 s=20 6/16 gen7-3d.batch OK 0.04 s=20 7/16 gen7-2d-copy.batch OK 0.02 s=20 8/16 intel-symbol-check OK 0.67 s=20 9/16 nouveau-symbol-check OK 0.32 s=20 10/16 radeon-symbol-check OK 0.37 s=20 11/16 amdgpu-symbol-check OK 0.52 s=20 12/16 threaded SKIP 0.01 s=20 13/16 random TIMEOUT 240.01 s=20 14/16 hash OK 0.02 s=20 15/16 drmsl OK 1.23 s=20 16/16 drmdevice SKIP 0.01 s=20 Ok: 13 Expected Fail: 0 Fail: 1 Unexpected Pass: 0 Skipped: 2 Timeout: 1 The output from the failed tests: 13/16 random TIMEOUT 240.01 s=20 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > The other GNOME upgrade that I worked on months ago still awaits a > rebase onto staging. I=E2=80=99ll try to get it into good shape to have = the > build farm build it out, so that more people can test it and provide > fixes where needed. Perhaps we can first merge =E2=80=98staging=E2=80=99 in its current form, t= hen make this branch the new =E2=80=98staging=E2=80=99 and aim for a merge as is (with on= ly fixes committed there.) How does that sound? Ludo=E2=80=99.