bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress

bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

This pseudo-bug is here to keep track of bug fixes and patch series we
aim to address for 1.4.0.

To add an issue as “required” for 1.4.0, mark this bug as “blocked” by
this issue (this is ‘C block NUMBER RET’ in debbugs.el).

Ludo’.

bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress

[Leo Famulari]

There are new crashes in the installer:

https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53541
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53544

bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress

[Leo Famulari]

The build farm is having trouble building Guix for i686-linux. In fact,
it hasn't successfully completed the 'guix' job in weeks:

https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53463

And building the guix package does not work on aarch64, also for weeks:

https://issues.guix.gnu.org/52943

Finally, should we consider retiring the armhf port in 1.4.0? It seems
that we have stopped trying to build for it:

https://ci.guix.gnu.org/search?query=guix+spec%3Amaster+system%3Aarmhf-linux

bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress

[Vagrant Cascadian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1179 bytes --]

On 2022-01-29, Leo Famulari wrote:
> The build farm is having trouble building Guix for i686-linux. In fact,
> it hasn't successfully completed the 'guix' job in weeks:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53463
>
> And building the guix package does not work on aarch64, also for weeks:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/52943

It does work on my aarch64 machine as of
1ef7a03a148cf5f83ab1820444f6bd50d8e732d1 and more recently
f8bfb2d85682dcabe56a4b1b0f25d566a0abbd2b, but not sure why it's not
building on the build farm...


> Finally, should we consider retiring the armhf port in 1.4.0? It seems
> that we have stopped trying to build for it:
>
> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/search?query=guix+spec%3Amaster+system%3Aarmhf-linux

In a similar vein, aarch64 substitutes are in pretty bad shape... and
the architecture as a whole is a bit hard to keep up with; there are
some pretty obscure and difficult to triage bugs here and there.

I'm not sure what the qualities of a release-worthy architecture are,
but aarch64 is definitely suffering badly ever since the core-updates
merge and the merge of the 1.4 branch into master, which required a lot
of rebuilds...


live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress

[Thiago Jung Bauermann via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

Hello,

Em sábado, 29 de janeiro de 2022, às 21:22:21 -03, Vagrant Cascadian 
escreveu:
> On 2022-01-29, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > The build farm is having trouble building Guix for i686-linux. In fact,
> > it hasn't successfully completed the 'guix' job in weeks:
> > 
> > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53463
> > 
> > And building the guix package does not work on aarch64, also for weeks:
> > 
> > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/52943
> 
> It does work on my aarch64 machine as of
> 1ef7a03a148cf5f83ab1820444f6bd50d8e732d1 and more recently
> f8bfb2d85682dcabe56a4b1b0f25d566a0abbd2b, but not sure why it's not
> building on the build farm...

A couple of weeks ago guixp9 wasn’t doing powerpc64le builds either.
I did a “guix pull && guix upgrade” (which upgraded the version of Cuirass 
installed) and restarted the Cuirass worker then things got back on track 
again. I don’t know why...

-- 
Thanks,
Thiago

bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

> The build farm is having trouble building Guix for i686-linux. In fact,
> it hasn't successfully completed the 'guix' job in weeks:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53463

(This issue title doesn’t mention i686.)  I’m looking at it, though a
bit slowly because I’ve been busy with other things:

  https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53506

> And building the guix package does not work on aarch64, also for weeks:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/52943

Ah, I thought this had been fixed with Chris Marusich’s commits but
apparently not?

> Finally, should we consider retiring the armhf port in 1.4.0? It seems
> that we have stopped trying to build for it:
>
> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/search?query=guix+spec%3Amaster+system%3Aarmhf-linux

The “armhf-linux” box was unchecked, not sure why.  I’ve re-added it and
we’ll see.  (For the record, anyone with access to berlin or with a
certificate can do it via the Cuirass web interface.)

Bordeaux.guix does have binaries:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix weather -s armhf-linux coreutils guile grep sed
computing 4 package derivations for armhf-linux...
looking for 6 store items on https://ci.guix.gnu.org...
https://ci.guix.gnu.org
  0.0% substitutes available (0 out of 6)
  unknown substitute sizes
  0.0 MiB on disk (uncompressed)
  0.042 seconds per request (0.2 seconds in total)
  23.6 requests per second

  0.0% (0 out of 6) of the missing items are queued
  at least 1,000 queued builds
      aarch64-linux: 1000 (100.0%)
  build rate: 17.64 builds per hour
      i686-linux: 4.74 builds per hour
      x86_64-linux: 9.23 builds per hour
      powerpc64le-linux: 3.69 builds per hour
looking for 6 store items on https://bordeaux.guix.gnu.org...
https://bordeaux.guix.gnu.org
  100.0% substitutes available (6 out of 6)
  23.1 MiB of nars (compressed)
  113.8 MiB on disk (uncompressed)
  0.034 seconds per request (0.1 seconds in total)
  29.3 requests per second
  (continuous integration information unavailable)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Overall it’s not a great situation to be in, but I think we should be
able to address it.  Usually I think it’s safer to merge ‘core-updates’
only after “make assert-binaries-available” passes.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

bug#53214: Release 1.4.0 progress

[Leo Famulari]

I suggest we fix #49508 "Implement --allow-insecure-transport for `guix
pull`" before the next release:

https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49508