From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#31647: [core-updates] gtkglext fails in a weird way Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 23:56:24 -0400 Message-ID: <8736y9dcev.fsf@netris.org> References: <87d0xeqq6l.fsf@elephly.net> <87a7siqk5m.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39656) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fNsFR-000268-Sw for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2018 23:58:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fNsFO-0000K3-R0 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2018 23:58:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:46643) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fNsFO-0000Jv-Mz for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2018 23:58:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fNsFO-0008TY-DK for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 29 May 2018 23:58:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87a7siqk5m.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Tue, 29 May 2018 22:30:45 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: 31647@debbugs.gnu.org Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> on =E2=80=9Ccore-updates=E2=80=9D the =E2=80=9Cgtkglext=E2=80=9D package= fails with an odd error >> message: [=E2=80=A6] > > It seems that this is not limited to =E2=80=9Cgtkglext=E2=80=9D. This be= haviour seems > to affect any package using =E2=80=9Cinvoke=E2=80=9D where the invoked co= mmand fails. > > Should the build system catch the exception and make sure that it gets > to print =E2=80=9Cbuild phase `foo' failed=E2=80=9D? In my opinion, it's not important for that message to be printed. What is being printed now is far more informative, and sometimes that extra information is quite useful. If we caught exceptions, we'd need to ensure that all of the relevant information about the exception is printed. The code to catch and print those exceptions would need to be in (guix build ...), and it could never be updated without forcing a full rebuild. 'call-with-error-handling' in (guix ui) might be suitable, but it would need to be duplicated. Also, even if we catch the exception and do a nice job printing it, we'd likely lose the backtrace to the original error, which in some cases might be quite useful. In summary, although the new messages don't look as nice in common cases, I think it's more important to ensure that we have the information we need to debug the occasional non-obvious problem. So, I think we should leave it alone :) What do you think? Mark