[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#46109: Failing tests (guix-pack, lint)
From: |
taxuswc |
Subject: |
bug#46109: Failing tests (guix-pack, lint) |
Date: |
Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:03:13 +0000 |
Hello,
26.01.2021 10:55, zimoun wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 22:10, taxuswc--- via Bug reports for GNU Guix
<bug-guix@gnu.org> wrote:
I am building GNU Guix from the source on a foreign distro. Several
tests fail:
Which commit are you building using which commit version?
Оfficial source tarball from https://guix.gnu.org/en/download/, probably
v1.2.0 (d5b556eef57321d0be89fdb07db447b2db2718ed)
Did you do
guix environment guix
./bootstrap
./configure --localstatedir=/var/
make
make check
? Or something else?
Or are you trying to bootstrap Guix on foreign distro?
Basically the same steps only without --localstatedir (it seems to
default to /var) and guix environment stuff, as guix is not installed in
the system yet.
I have installed the prerequisites manually or from a foreign distro
package manager, so to my mind it probably does not count as
``bootstrapping''.
FAIL: tests/lint
================
[...]
test-name: archival: missing content
location: /home/taxus/downloads/distro/guix/guix-1.2.0/tests/lint.scm:921
source:
+ (test-assert
+ "archival: missing content"
+ (let* ((origin
+ (origin
+ (method url-fetch)
+ (uri "http://example.org/foo.tgz")
+ (sha256 (make-bytevector 32))))
+ (warnings
+ (with-http-server
+ '((404 "Not archived."))
+ (parameterize
+ ((%swh-base-url (%local-url)))
+ (check-archival
+ (dummy-package "x" (source origin)))))))
+ (warning-contains? "not archived" warnings)))
actual-value: #f
actual-error:
+ (keyword-argument-error
+ #<procedure http-request (uri #:key body port method version keep-alive?
headers decode-body? streaming? request)>
+ "Unrecognized keyword"
+ ()
+ (#:verify-certificate?))
result: FAIL
Hum?!
I got guile from the foreign distro package manager, so it was an
obvious suspect, but upon inspection [1] it is just vanilla guile 2.2.6
without any distro-specific patches.
[1]
https://gitea.artixlinux.org/artixlinux/packages/src/branch/master/guile/repos/extra-x86_64/PKGBUILD
Could you please clarify which additional info can I provide to identify
the root of the issue? Maybe, should I try building with guile 3.x?
[...]
FAIL: tests/guix-pack
=====================
+ guile -c '(getaddrinfo "www.gnu.org" "80" AI_NUMERICSERV)'
+ guix pack --version
guix pack (GNU Guix) 1.2.0
Copyright (C) 2020 the Guix authors
License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
[...]
+ tar -xf
/home/taxus/downloads/distro/guix/guix-1.2.0/test-tmp/store/az698s2v2q2qnc1ljrg4ypnjpb246x4c-tarball-pack.tar.xz
tar: ./opt/gnu/bin: Cannot hard link to ‘./opt/gnu/bin’: No such file or
directory
tar: Exiting with failure status due to previous errors
+ chmod -Rf +w /tmp/tmp.QVmTayA5IX
+ rm -rf /tmp/tmp.QVmTayA5IX
FAIL tests/guix-pack.sh (exit status: 2)
Well, the problem is not with tar as I previously assumed.
guix pack --bootstrap -S /opt/gnu/bin=bin guile-bootstrap
creates the following tarball
$ tar -tvf "$the_pack" | grep '/opt/'
drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 1970-01-01 03:00 ./opt/gnu/
lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 1970-01-01 03:00 ./opt/gnu/bin ->
../../home/taxus/downloads/distro/guix/guix-1.2.0/test-tmp/store/w67kdqf2ghkkxp6spdyvfvvhiqqk3g76-profile/bin
hrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 1970-01-01 03:00 ./opt/gnu/bin link to
./opt/gnu/bin
I can hardly understand how the last line can be correct in any setup.
An attempt to unpack the tarball quite expectedly results in
tar: ./opt/gnu/bin: Cannot hard link to './opt/gnu/bin': No such file
or directory
as the hardlink creation erases the file it wants to reference in the
first place..
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
[...]
ERROR: In procedure scm-error:
no code for module (ssh key)
It seems a misconfiguration of your environment.
It is likely the case, however, I would like to setup offloading once
guix is working, so for now I have commented out the test in question to
get any sort of report.
Thanks for the reply!
All the best,
~taxuswc