Hello, 宋文武 <iyzs...@envs.net> writes:
> Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> writes: > >> For example, naev used to work just fine, yet apparently it doesn't >> anymore: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/65390. >> >> Given that Guix has ci.guix.gnu.org, I would expect such new problems >> to be detected and resolved early, and it was detected by >> ci.guix.gnu.org, yet going by issues.guix.gnu.org it was never even >> investigated. > > Yes, honestly I only look for build failures from bug reports, not from > CI if i'm not doing a "request for merge" from another branch. > >> >> (Yes, there is a delay, but that doesn't matter at all, as there's >> this dashboard <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/668365/dashboard>.) > > I found the dashboard inconvenient to use, it show failures for both > builds and dependencies in the same red color, and can't be searched. > What I usually do is: > > 1. download the job status json with: > wget -O jobs.json > 'https://ci.guix.gnu.org/api/jobs?evaluation=692229&system=x86_64-linux' > > 2. use jq to show package names with build failures: > cat jobs.json | jq '. | map(select(.status == 1)) | .[].name' -r > > 3. select interested one to investigate (if doing merge, diff the failures > from > working branch with master). Maybe we should open Cuirass feature requests on our bug tracker to remember what would be valuable to implement. >> Do people really need to report 33% of all jobs >> (https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/668365/dashboard) before those failures >> are taken seriously, instead of the ‘there don't seem to be that much >> more build failures from the core-updates/... merge, let's solve them >> later (i.e., never)’ that seems to be status quo? > > Maybe we can automatically report the failures as bugs, say every 7 > days, and remove a package if it still fail to build in 90 days? That's sounds reasonable to me. > As for now, x86_64 master (eval 668365) has 696 build failures, 604 > dependencies failures, 30 unknown (canceld?) failures, total 1330 > failures according to the jobs.json data. > > Should we open a bug report for each of those 696 build failures? I'm not against, though that sounds like a lot of work unless automated. -- Thanks, Maxim
