Hello,
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.courno...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > > Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerm...@kolabnow.com> writes: > > [...] > >>> (IIRC, I think they're related to the lei tests expecting to be able >>> to kill the lei-daemon process, which isn't the case in Guix's build >>> environment.) >> >> Yes, that's what I'm seeing as well. The lei-daemon process is actually >> killed, but because of bug 30948 it is left in a zombie state and so the >> testsuite thinks that it didn't go away. > >> The testsuite checks whether lei-daemon is gone by doing a >> “kill(<lei-daemon pid>, 0)”, which unfortunately succeeds for zombie >> processes. >> >> I've been meaning to add child reaping to the Guix builder process, but >> I'm moving very slowly due to time constraints and my unfamiliarity with >> that part of Guix... > > Yes, that would be the correct and general solution (I hope you get to > fix it, else I may look into it in some time). I hope so too, but at this point it's more hope than anything else, unfortunately. I think I'll be in a time crunch for a few more weeks... > Workarounds currently in use can be seen in our mutter package > definition (it's a bit convoluted, having to fork a process in which > we set the child reaping property and invoke the test suite via tini, > acting as a fake PID 1). Ah, that's great to know! This is a good alternative for the main branch, since the general solution would need to go to core-updates since it would change every derivation in Guix. > HTH, It does, very much! Thank you for the mutter tip. -- Thanks Thiago