valgrind

valgrind

[Andreas Enge]

Hello,

I am a bit confused about the valgrind situation. Currently there are three
packages:
(define-public valgrind
  (package
    (name "valgrind")
    (version "3.17.0")
    (properties '((hidden? . #t)))))

(define-public valgrind/interactive
  (package/inherit
   valgrind
   (version "3.17.0")

(define-public valgrind-3.20
  (package
    (inherit valgrind/interactive)
    (version "3.20.0")

I have the impression that my past problems with using valgrind have been
solved since the upgrade to 3.20.0, which is the one installed by
"guix package -i valgrind".

On the other hand, the first package is the one used as input to other
packages.

Is version 3.17 really needed? Is the distinction between the hidden package
and the "interactive" package still important?

Andreas

Re: valgrind

[zimoun]

Hi,

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 12:01, Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> wrote:

> (define-public valgrind
>   (package
>     (name "valgrind")
>     (version "3.17.0")
>     (properties '((hidden? . #t)))))
>
> (define-public valgrind/interactive
>   (package/inherit
>    valgrind
>    (version "3.17.0")
>
> (define-public valgrind-3.20
>   (package
>     (inherit valgrind/interactive)
>     (version "3.20.0")

> Is version 3.17 really needed? Is the distinction between the hidden package
> and the "interactive" package still important?

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix refresh -l -e '(@ (gnu packages valgrind) valgrind)'
Building the following 544 packages would ensure 1085 dependent packages are rebuilt:
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

I guess, the symbol ’valgrind’ refers to a minimal version of Valgrind
used by many packages.  Well, I guess again that ’valgrind-minimal’
could be a better name. :-)

Both ’valgrind/interactive’ and ’valgrind-3.20’ provides what user
expects with Valgrind but at 2 different versions.

Is the package ’valgrind/interactive’ accessible with valgrind@3.17
needed?  Indeed, maybe it could be dropped, especially if it is broken
for some use-case.


Cheers,
simon

Re: valgrind

[Andreas Enge]

Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:39:29PM +0100 schrieb zimoun:
> Is the package ’valgrind/interactive’ accessible with valgrind@3.17
> needed?  Indeed, maybe it could be dropped, especially if it is broken
> for some use-case.

I do not know whether it is broken; the question is rather whether it is
needed: We do not normally keep several versions of packages around unless
there is a good reason, and if there is one, it does not seem to be
documented here.

Similarly for valgrind-noninteractive 3.17; maybe if it is to be removed
and replaced by valgrind-noninteractive 3.20, this will have to be done
on a particular branch, or maybe it is indeed needed.

The need for valgrind-noninteractive is also unclear.

Andreas

Re: valgrind

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

The two ‘/interactive’ versions can probably be merged; I don’t think
there was a good reason to keep 3.17.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: valgrind

[Simon Tournier]

Hi Andreas,

On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 14:16, Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> wrote:
> Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:39:29PM +0100 schrieb zimoun:

>> Is the package ’valgrind/interactive’ accessible with valgrind@3.17
>> needed?  Indeed, maybe it could be dropped, especially if it is broken
>> for some use-case.
>
> I do not know whether it is broken;

Sorry if I have misunderstood your initial message, quoting: « I have
the impression that my past problems with using valgrind have been
solved since the upgrade to 3.20.0 ».

>                                     the question is rather whether it is
> needed: We do not normally keep several versions of packages around unless
> there is a good reason, and if there is one, it does not seem to be
> documented here.

Yes, I agree with your question.

From my point of view, the package referred by the symbol
’valgrind/interactive’ accessible by the user with “valgrind@3.17” and
providing an expected Valgrind at version 3.17 is not needed and it
could be dropped.


> Similarly for valgrind-noninteractive 3.17; maybe if it is to be removed
> and replaced by valgrind-noninteractive 3.20, this will have to be done
> on a particular branch, or maybe it is indeed needed.

The removal of the hidden package referred by the symbol ’valgrind’ (I
guess what you are naming valgrind-noninteractive 3.17) is a
core-updates change.  It is difficult to say if the update from 3.17 to
3.20 will be smooth or not; ~1000+ packages at least are impacted by
such update.

Therefore, yes this package is needed for master. :-)


> The need for valgrind-noninteractive is also unclear.

Since it is an hidden package, it is not straightforward to evaluate the
closure.  I guess, this difference between valgrind and
valgrind/interactive (whatever the version) is about the closure.


Well, the package referred by the symbol ’valgrind/interactive’ should
be replaced by what ’valgrind-3.20’ provides.  Done with patch#61199 [1].

1: http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/61199

Cheers,
simon