From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#25192: guix-0.11.0 fails to compile on modern GuixSD system Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 23:05:01 -0500 Message-ID: <87lgvjyx3m.fsf@netris.org> References: <877f741rkg.fsf@netris.org> <87wpf3jub5.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:40801) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cH0pS-00024U-Gk for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 23:06:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cH0pO-0006vq-O0 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 23:06:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:54130) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cH0pO-0006vk-KV for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 23:06:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cH0pO-000347-Ex for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 23:06:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87wpf3jub5.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:14:22 +0100") 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 25192@debbugs.gnu.org ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Does it succeed if you run =E2=80=9Cmake=E2=80=9D again? Sorry, I forgot to mention in my previous message that I ran 'make' four times. Search for "$ " in the transcript to find the prompts. Since then, I've tried twice more, and it failed each time. > That sounds to me like a thread-unsafety issue in > build-aux/compile-all.scm. :-/ Possibly, but it is notable that the error occurred in 6 consecutive attempts, and do not recall seeing this error before. FWIW, I consider this a low-priority bug. Thanks, Mark