Hi Guix! I've been getting errors while running `guix pull' on an aarch64 system, during the final guix-package-cache step:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(repl-version 0 1 1)
Generating package cache for
'/gnu/store/m8in1imi93snq711d7568dj9hlrx4diz-profile'...
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
1747:15 19 (with-exception-handler #<procedure af1570 at ice-9/bo?> ?)
1752:10 18 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In guix/repl.scm:
99:21 17 (_)
In unknown file:
16 (_ #<procedure 82fd00 at guix/repl.scm:100:25 ()> #<pr?> ?)
15 (primitive-load "/gnu/store/3x6g541ixbmdjav4ky6dp1ryj4l?")
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
1752:10 14 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In gnu/packages.scm:
438:11 13 (generate-package-cache _)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
460:18 12 (fold #<procedure expand-cache expr> _ _)
In gnu/packages.scm:
390:9 11 (expand-cache . _)
In guix/packages.scm:
1317:17 10 (supported-package? #<package linux-libre@4.14.300 gnu?> ?)
In guix/memoization.scm:
101:0 9 (_ #<hash-table 31605e0 13974/28099> #<package linux-l?> ?)
In guix/packages.scm:
1295:37 8 (_)
1555:16 7 (package->bag _ _ _ #:graft? _)
1660:43 6 (thunk)
In gnu/packages/linux.scm:
986:37 5 (arguments #<package linux-libre@4.14.300 gnu/packages/?>)
In guix/gexp.scm:
460:52 4 (%local-file #f #<promise #<procedure 4df2660 at gnu/p?> ?)
In unknown file:
3 (basename #f #<undefined>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
1685:16 2 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)
1780:13 1 (_ #<&compound-exception components: (#<&assertion-fail?>)
In unknown file:
0 (backtrace #<undefined>)
(exception wrong-type-arg (value "scm_to_utf8_stringn") (value "Wrong type
argument in position ~A (expecting ~A): ~S") (value (1 "string" #f)) (value
(#f)))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I was able to decipher the backtrace to *maybe* put together a fix, but
I'm unsure why the problem started. My best guess is that it started
with commit dfc6957a5af7d179d4618eb19d4f555c519bc6f2, even though I
can't find where the issue actually is, it looks fine to me!
What seems to happen is that the `kernel-config' function now receive an
`arch' argument for an architecture that isn't actually supported by
that kernel, as is the case for linux-libre@4.14.300. And, correctly,
the function should not expect to ever get such arch value to begin
with, so we get a `(local-file #f)'.
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define* (kernel-config arch #:key variant)
"Return a file-like object of the Linux-Libre build configuration file for
ARCH and optionally VARIANT, or #f if there is no such configuration."
(let* ((name (string-append (if variant (string-append variant "-") "")
(if (string=? "i386" arch) "i686" arch) ".conf"))
(file (string-append "linux-libre/" name)))
(local-file (search-auxiliary-file file))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I think it's fair for that function expect the arch to be valid (why
would you ask the config for an unsupported arch?).
I think it should be possible to fix this by checking the arch is
supported at the call site:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
>From 77829140f14928e30cbe4e53c625be3ba2f5895f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pierre Langlois <pierre.langl...@gmx.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 23:41:40 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: make-linux-libre*: Do not get config for unsupported
systems.
* gnu/packages/linux.scm (make-linux-libre*)[phases] <configure>: Check
arch is in supported-systems before calling configuration-file.
---
gnu/packages/linux.scm | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/linux.scm b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
index 5ae6366593..87fc9fe94c 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/linux.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
@@ -983,6 +983,7 @@ (define* (make-linux-libre* version gnu-revision source supported-systems
(or (%current-target-system)
(%current-system))))))
(and configuration-file arch
+ (member arch supported-systems)
(configuration-file
arch
#:variant (version-major+minor version))))
--
2.38.1
But I'm not quite sure why this is happening, some quirk from moving things over gexps? I'm currently trying this fix to make sure it does solve the problem (guix pull takes so long without substitutes :-) ). Will report back in 5-10 minutes. Thanks! Pierre
