Hi Ludo’! Em quarta-feira, 4 de agosto de 2021, às 17:48:59 -03, Ludovic Courtès escreveu: > Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerm...@kolabnow.com> skribis: > > Em quarta-feira, 28 de julho de 2021, às 08:50:16 -03, Mathieu Othacehe > > > escreveu: > [...] > > >> Cuirass has started evaluating this branch here: > >> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/core-updates-frozen. According to the > >> related dashboard, there's still a bit of work required to stabilize > >> this branch: https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/68124/dashboard. > > > > There are no results for powerpc64le-linux. Does anyone know why? > > It was turned off in the config at > <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/specification/edit/core-updates-frozen>. I’ve > added it now (though maybe it won’t actually build until someone has > pushed.)
Thanks for the explanation. And thanks for re-adding it! > Note that currently ci.guix only does emulated powerpc64le-linux because > the only POWER9 machine we currently have access to (lent by OSUOSL) is > not running ‘cuirass-remote-worker’. Ah, I didn’t realise that. I started out my investigations of powerpc64le- linux CI failures using emulation on my laptop (both with qemu-user and qemu-system), and found it to be a bit unreliable. I saw some failures in packages’ testsuite results which don’t happen on real hardware. There was one in the glib package in particular which happened on the master branch and prevented a `guix pull` command from succeeding. This is what prompted me to request the Minicloud VM instance. > It’s a foreign distro (Debian) so > setting up these things can be a bit tedious. If you or anyone would > like to help with this, we can discuss it! I’d be glad to help set that up and maintain the OSUOSL machine! > (bordeaux.guix does have a POWER9 build machine behind, but it’s not > building ‘core-updates-frozen’ currently.) Nice! I’d be glad to help with that machine as well if there’s anything to do on that front. > > The last Cuirass evaluation of core-updates with powerpc64le-linux > > results is https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/67285 so I tried to run the > > failed builds on my VM to see what the current state is. My > > core-updates-frozen branch was at commit f8458a228224 > > (”build-system/python: Handle missing metadata on Python 2.”) when I > > did these builds. > > > > At first, I didn’t try the “*tarball*” builds because I didn’t want to > > focus on the bootstrap binaries. Apart from those, I was glad to see > > that all failed powerpc64le-linux builds from that evaluation built > > fine on my VM, except for the ones below: > > > > • gcc-toolchain@4.8 > > • gcc-toolchain@5.5 > > • gmp@4.3.2 aka `(@@ (gnu packages commencement) gmp-boot)` > > • mpfr@2.4.2 aka `(@@ (gnu packages commencement) mpfr-boot)` > > • mpc@1.0.3 aka `(@@ (gnu packages commencement) mpc-boot)` > > > > I later tried building ‘bootstrap-tarballs’, but it failed during the > > build of the static gawk binary. > > > > I also did a `guix pull --branch=core-updates-frozen`, which built a > > ton of stuff and completed successfully. At the time, > > core-updates-frozen was at commit 5e4cdb5b3b1d (”gnu: python-django: > > Fix test failure.”) > > Woow, that’s fairly intense testing! :-) I was glad to see that powerpc64le-linux was in better shape than I had thought. > Does the Coreutils test failure at <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49752> > happen on real hardware? Thanks for point it out. I just tested and it doesn’t! I’ll close that issue. > > So next step for me is to look into the build failures above. I’ll > > semi-randomly start with ‘gmp-boot’ and see what I can find out. > > Neat, thank you! You’re welcome. Patches on issues 49880, 49881 and 49882. :-) -- Thanks, Thiago
