bug#66537: configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing

bug#66537: configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing

[Hiep Pham via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

Hi,

I'm on Fedora and started a shell with:

```
guix shell -D guix help2man git strace --pure
```

And then:

```
./bootstrap
./configure --localstatedir=/var
```

And it showed me this error:

```
[snip]
checking for guile-3.0 >= 3.0.3... yes
checking for guile-3.0... yes
checking if (gnutls) is available... no
configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing; please 
install them.
```

I started the shell again with some dependencies but no luck :(

```
guix shell -D guix git strace guile-gnutls gnutls --pure
```

My current (guix describe):

```
   guix 8e8d20b
     repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git
     branch: master
     commit: 8e8d20b6b35d3ab529f9045cc8a779cdcec9c471
```

-- 
Hiep

bug#66537: configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing

[Daniel Meißner via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

Hi Hiep,

> Hi,
>
> I'm on Fedora and started a shell with:
>
> ```
> guix shell -D guix help2man git strace --pure
> ```
>
> And then:
>
> ```
> ./bootstrap
> ./configure --localstatedir=/var
> ```
>
> And it showed me this error:
>
> ```
> [snip]
> checking for guile-3.0 >= 3.0.3... yes
> checking for guile-3.0... yes
> checking if (gnutls) is available... no
> configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing; please 
> install them.
> ```

Have you installed Guile 3.0 via Fedora’s package manager also?  Then
maybe configure finds Fedora’s Guile where Guile-GnuTLS is not
installed.  You could try using a container to confirm:

guix shell -C -D guix help2man git strace

Then try again:

./bootstrap
./configure --localstatedir=/var

When this works configure is probably finding the wrong Guile binary.
Alternatively look into the file config.status which is generated by
configure for a line like

S["GUILE"]="/path/to/guile"

This shows which Guile binary is found.

-- 
Best,
Daniel

bug#66537: configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing

[Hiep Pham via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

Hi Daniel,

On 10/17/23 10:59, Daniel Meißner wrote:
> Hi Hiep,
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm on Fedora and started a shell with:
>>
>> ```
>> guix shell -D guix help2man git strace --pure
>> ```
>>
>> And then:
>>
>> ```
>> ./bootstrap
>> ./configure --localstatedir=/var
>> ```
>>
>> And it showed me this error:
>>
>> ```
>> [snip]
>> checking for guile-3.0 >= 3.0.3... yes
>> checking for guile-3.0... yes
>> checking if (gnutls) is available... no
>> configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing; please
>> install them.
>> ```
> 
> Have you installed Guile 3.0 via Fedora’s package manager also?  Then
> maybe configure finds Fedora’s Guile where Guile-GnuTLS is not
> installed.  You could try using a container to confirm:
> 
> guix shell -C -D guix help2man git strace
> 
> Then try again:
> 
> ./bootstrap
> ./configure --localstatedir=/var

Running `guix shell -C -D guix help2man git strace --pure` in a 
container solved my problem! Thanks.

> When this works configure is probably finding the wrong Guile binary.
> Alternatively look into the file config.status which is generated by
> configure for a line like
> 
> S["GUILE"]="/path/to/guile"
> 
> This shows which Guile binary is found.

I followed this contributing guide [1] in the manual. It might be 
helpful to update the documentation to run the shell in an isolated 
container.

[1] https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/guix.html#Building-from-Git

-- 
Hiep

bug#66537: [PATCH] doc: Recommend building in ‘guix shell -CPW’.

[Ludovic Courtès]

This was prompted by <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/66537>, where someone
tried to build Guix within ‘guix shell --pure’ on a foreign distro and
found that ./configure would pick software from the host system.

Suggested by Hiep Pham <hiepph9@proton.me>.

* doc/contributing.texi (Building from Git): Recommend ‘guix shell -CPW’.

Change-Id: I7694b482d982917fef6ec404f68ddacea761f482
---
 doc/contributing.texi | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index f3cc4d7af7..da72eae067 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -76,15 +76,17 @@ Building from Git
 hack on Guix:
 
 @example
-guix shell -D guix --pure
+guix shell -D guix -CPW
 @end example
 
 or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix:
 
 @example
-guix shell --pure
+guix shell -CPW
 @end example
 
+If @option{-C} (short for @option{--container}) is not supported on your
+system, try @command{--pure} instead of @option{-CPW}.
 @xref{Invoking guix shell}, for more information on that command.
 
 If you are unable to use Guix when building Guix from a checkout, the

base-commit: d987b75618a62c95c030e7ca53e0972e700c4f06
-- 
2.41.0

bug#66537: [PATCH] doc: Recommend building in ‘guix shell -CPW’.

[Simon Tournier]

Hi,

On mer., 22 nov. 2023 at 13:05, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

>  @example
> -guix shell -D guix --pure
> +guix shell -D guix -CPW
>  @end example
>  
>  or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix:
>  
>  @example
> -guix shell --pure
> +guix shell -CPW
>  @end example

I would not recommend that or adding also the option -N.  Else, the
development experience can be annoying.

For instance, “make check” will probably fail because some substitutes
are missing (see #67532 [1], e.g., tests/derivations.scm).

Moreover, one needs to go out the shell for submitting with “git
send-email” but then git:send-email is not necessary available in PATH.

1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/67532


Cheers,
simon

bug#66537: configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing

[Simon Tournier]

Hi Ludo,

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 20:33, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:
> On mer., 22 nov. 2023 at 13:05, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>>  @example
>> -guix shell -D guix --pure
>> +guix shell -D guix -CPW
>>  @end example
>>
>>  or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix:
>>
>>  @example
>> -guix shell --pure
>> +guix shell -CPW
>>  @end example
>
> I would not recommend that or adding also the option -N.  Else, the
> development experience can be annoying.

As said, I disagree with this change pushed by
01361d46b8e0481ad56665d7a06c276b08f59c6d.

Could you revert?  Because as explained by…

> For instance, “make check” will probably fail because some substitutes
> are missing (see #67532 [1], e.g., tests/derivations.scm).

…the option ’-CPW’ is not a solution.  Other said, it would require in
addition ’-N’.

To me, this recommendation of container is like a bazooka for chasing
the real bug: about why --pure does not clean all as expected.  Or why
“guile” is found elsewhere?

Cheers,
simon

bug#66537: [PATCH] doc: Recommend building in ‘guix shell -CPW’.

[Simon Tournier]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2894 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 at 16:50, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>  @example
>>> -guix shell --pure
>>> +guix shell -CPW
>>>  @end example
>>
>> I would not recommend that or adding also the option -N.  Else, the
>> development experience can be annoying.
>
> As said, I disagree with this change pushed by
> 01361d46b8e0481ad56665d7a06c276b08f59c6d.
>
> Could you revert?  Because as explained by…
>
>> For instance, “make check” will probably fail because some substitutes
>> are missing (see #67532 [1], e.g., tests/derivations.scm).
>
> …the option ’-CPW’ is not a solution.  Other said, it would require in
> addition ’-N’.

Ludo’s answer from bug#67532 [1]:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
I had come to forget about that because for the ‘guix’ package
(obviously built in a network-less environment), we “pre-seed” the store
with the 4 or 5 files needed to run the test suite.

So I propose:
[ text/x-patch ]
diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index 0833b5d32c..0072e5d42d 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -76,13 +76,13 @@ Building from Git
 hack on Guix:

 @example
-guix shell -D guix -CPW
+guix shell -D guix -CPWN
 @end example

 or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix:

 @example
-guix shell -CPW
+guix shell -CPWN
 @end example

 If @option{-C} (short for @option{--container}) is not supported on your
[ text/plain ]

(And not going back to ‘--pure’ because as we know it depends too much
of the goodwill of the user’s shell.)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Well, IMHO it falls into…

> To me, this recommendation of container is like a bazooka for chasing
> the real bug: about why --pure does not clean all as expected.  Or why
> “guile” is found elsewhere?

…a bazooka for killing a fly.  For instance, in the two message of the
initial bug report, I do not see the output of the current
recommendation: run “guix shell --check”.

Yes, “guix shell” depends on the goodwill of the user’s shell but
recommending first --pure is an opportunity for improving --check and/or
--pure itself, IMHO.

Considering this reported instance of issue, it is not clear for me that
--check would not have reported the problem.  Or why --pure does not
correctly clean all the environment variables?  Or why ./configure set
something system wide?

For me, these questions are the bug.  And -CPWN is just a temporary
workaround avoiding the bug and not a fix.

Somehow, if the use of “-CPWN” instead of “--pure“ is not an idea that
user has when hitting a failure with “guix shell --pure”, yeah maybe it
could be helpful to recommend it in addition.  And not the contrary. :-)
Something like:


[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #2: p.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 979 bytes --]

diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index 7337f4bd58..8f66b3642b 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -76,18 +76,19 @@ Building from Git
 hack on Guix:
 
 @example
-guix shell -D guix -CPW
+guix shell -D guix --pure
 @end example
 
 or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix:
 
 @example
-guix shell -CPW
+guix shell --pure
 @end example
 
-If @option{-C} (short for @option{--container}) is not supported on your
-system, try @command{--pure} instead of @option{-CPW}.
-@xref{Invoking guix shell}, for more information on that command.
+If building Guix fails, please check the environment variables using the
+option @command{--check}.  In the last resort, try @option{-CPWN}
+instead of @command{--pure}.  @xref{Invoking guix shell}, for more
+information on that command.
 
 If you are unable to use Guix when building Guix from a checkout, the
 following are the required packages in addition to those mentioned in the

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 421 bytes --]



That’s said, going your road, I would suggest to add option, say
-A/no-long-name doing all (-CPWN) at once.

Cheers,
simon


1: bug#67532: “make check” requires network
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
Mon, 11 Dec 2023 22:42:30 +0100
id:87sf482z7d.fsf@gnu.org
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/67532
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/87sf482z7d.fsf@gnu.org
https://yhetil.org/guix/87sf482z7d.fsf@gnu.org

bug#67366: [PATCH] doc: Recommend building in ‘guix shell -CPW’.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

> This was prompted by <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/66537>, where someone
> tried to build Guix within ‘guix shell --pure’ on a foreign distro and
> found that ./configure would pick software from the host system.
>
> Suggested by Hiep Pham <hiepph9@proton.me>.
>
> * doc/contributing.texi (Building from Git): Recommend ‘guix shell -CPW’.
>
> Change-Id: I7694b482d982917fef6ec404f68ddacea761f482

Pushed as 01361d46b8e0481ad56665d7a06c276b08f59c6d.

Ludo'.