Maxim Cournoyer writes:
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver writes:
Hi Maxim,
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
Christopher Baines writes:
[...]
At least from what I can see on the issues, the problem was
introduced
with the update to 3.98.0 [3] and then continued with the
update to 3.99
[4]. Given the
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver writes:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer writes:
>
>> Christopher Baines writes:
> [...]
>>> At least from what I can see on the issues, the problem was introduced
>>> with the update to 3.98.0 [3] and then continued with the update to 3.99
>>> [4]. Given the changes in
Hi Maxim,
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
> Christopher Baines writes:
[...]
>> At least from what I can see on the issues, the problem was introduced
>> with the update to 3.98.0 [3] and then continued with the update to 3.99
>> [4]. Given the changes in 70662 were sent to guix-patches and then
>>
"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" writes:
> Hello Christopher.
>
> Christopher Baines writes:
>> Had the changes waited for longer, then these failures should have been
>> spotted by QA, I would guess that the revision might have failed to be
>> processed, and if it was processed successfully, the
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
>> Before closing this bug, it would be good to understand more about how
>> this happened and from that try to think if anything can be done to
>> prevent similar issues in the future?
>>
>> At least from what I can see on the issues, the problem was introduced
>> with
Hi,
Christopher Baines writes:
[...]
>> I think there's two issues here, was this spotted before merging, and
>> what if anything can be done about this now. Where there's not a
>> substitute available for nss@3.99, this will affect guix pull/guix
>> time-machine, e.g.
>>
>> → guix
Hello Christopher.
Christopher Baines writes:
> Had the changes waited for longer, then these failures should have been
> spotted by QA, I would guess that the revision might have failed to be
> processed, and if it was processed successfully, the nss failures should
> have shown up, so maybe we
Christopher Baines writes:
> nss@3.99 is really hard to build, it's so hard and so important that
> data.guix.gnu.org is still after two days trying to process [1]. I say
> so important because you have to build nss@3.99 to compute the channel
> instance derivations for Guix.
>
> 1:
Perhaps we could disable the test suite for power9 ? At the moment guix
pull fails on power9...I believe due to this bug.
Just a thought.
Joshua
Hi,
On 01/05/2024 18:14, Christopher Baines wrote:
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
Hi Chris,
Christopher Baines writes:
nss@3.99 is really hard to build, it's so hard and so important that
data.guix.gnu.org is still after two days trying to process [1]. I say
so important because you have to
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Christopher Baines writes:
>
>> nss@3.99 is really hard to build, it's so hard and so important that
>> data.guix.gnu.org is still after two days trying to process [1]. I say
>> so important because you have to build nss@3.99 to compute the channel
>>
Hi Chris,
Christopher Baines writes:
> nss@3.99 is really hard to build, it's so hard and so important that
> data.guix.gnu.org is still after two days trying to process [1]. I say
> so important because you have to build nss@3.99 to compute the channel
> instance derivations for Guix.
I agree
Christopher Baines writes:
> nss@3.99 is really hard to build, it's so hard and so important that
> data.guix.gnu.org is still after two days trying to process [1]. I say
> so important because you have to build nss@3.99 to compute the channel
> instance derivations for Guix.
>
> 1:
nss@3.99 is really hard to build, it's so hard and so important that
data.guix.gnu.org is still after two days trying to process [1]. I say
so important because you have to build nss@3.99 to compute the channel
instance derivations for Guix.
1:
14 matches
Mail list logo
