On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 06:42:10PM -0500, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > John Kehayias <john.kehay...@protonmail.com> writes: > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > On Sun, Dec 03, 2023 at 01:32 PM, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> After recent mesa/xorg upgrades, qtbase fails to build on i686, per > >> <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/2700964/details>. > > > > I saw this when I was working on the mesa-updates branch, but I didn't > > think it was a new failure. I looked back just now and even going to > > July or further back I don't see any successful builds of qtbase-6.* > > on i686-linux. The most recent version has the same failures as this > > log, pre-mesa-updates. Looked like a previous version of qtbase-6 had > > a different failure though. > > Indeed. I wonder why Cuirass flagged the failure as a new one.
Maybe it was mixing up qtbase@5 and qtbase@6 for determining if it had successfully built before? > [...] > > > As for the actual cause, I don't have a clue. There was a failure > > cause by an update on that branch, which I had fixed in > > aee3c5a894fddf88810f18fa8880b423b078b3fa (from libxkbcommon update). > > > > Was there a version of qtbase-6 that builds on i686? > > OK. I don't seem to find one looking at CI. We should probably report > this upstream if it hasn't already been. I found it broken when I was going through a big rebuild and I believe it tracked it down to the -DFEATURE_xxx=OFF flags that we've been carrying since qt-4. Once I removed them i686 stopped trying to use 128-bit numbers and compiled successfully. As a comparison, Debian doesn't use those flags. I've closed the bug since it now builds, but feel free to re-open it if we want to revisit removing the flags or anything. -- Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> רנשלפ םירפא GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
