Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:52:24PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> I'm not 100% sure what's happening either, but more packages are
>> becoming broken over time. I think it has to do with the fact that
>> 'git' is one of the broken packages, and other packages that fetch their
>> source code using 'git' are becoming broken whenever Guix decides it's
>> time to try re-downloading the source, e.g.:
>
> Okay, that is an interesting explanation!
>
>> I've reverted the patch. After we have a solution to this problem, we
>> can build it in a separate branch. I think we should have done this
>> anyway, since updating Boost entails a lot of rebuilds, and has a
>> history of being problematic on non-Intel platforms.
>
> With only 69 dependent packages, it did not look like a big risk!
It's definitely more than that. As I recall, Hydra had to do on the
order of 600 rebuilds after your boost update. This is a case where
"guix refresh -l" is way off.
> It just built with the patch on my mips machine:
> Performing configuration checks
>
> - 32-bit : yes
> - arm : no
> - mips1 : no
> - power : no
> - sparc : no
> - x86 : no
> - combined : no
> I still find it suspicious that it is not recognised as "mips1"; it may
> have to do with the different ABIs, since when I build it on debian,
> it says "mips1 : yes".
Yes, it might have to do with that. Debian uses the O32 ABI.
> I will push this to a wip-boost branch, and try to build a dependent package
> locally. I wonder if I should base wip-boost on openssl-update; but with
> only 69 dependent packages (if the count is true), it probably does not
> matter.
Can we do this on core-updates instead? I'm currently working on a
core-updates branch. I will push it soon, after I've done some basic
testing on it.
Hydra is already overloaded trying to rebuild the openssl-update jobset,
and now it will have more to do since I reverted boost on master and
rebased openssl-update on that. I want to get openssl-update built
ASAP.
What do you think?
Mark
