bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-02-01 Thread Leo Famulari
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 04:13:28PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > I'm testing building sbcl-cambl on it now. That is the package that > spurred this bug report. This build [0] succeeds on the overdrive. So, we should prioritize getting the overdrives back into the build farm, and we can also try

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-02-01 Thread Leo Famulari
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 09:56:05PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > This time I wasn’t asking about English :-), but rather about whether > the patch Efraim provided was indeed to paper over our CI problems. Well, that patch does indeed "paper over" the CI problems. Christopher Baines has

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-02-01 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Leo Famulari skribis: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:13:58PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Now, I think we should avoid papering over CI configuration issues (did >> I get that right?) by changing package definitions. > > Yes, that's idiomatic English, if that is what you were asking about. > >

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-19 Thread Leo Famulari
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:13:58PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Now, I think we should avoid papering over CI configuration issues (did > I get that right?) by changing package definitions. Yes, that's idiomatic English, if that is what you were asking about. And I agree, the package

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-19 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Efraim Flashner skribis: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:11:11PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:29:49AM +0100, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: >> > If we want to disable SBCL builds temporarily we can do something >> > similar to what I did to disable Rust builds on

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-18 Thread Mathieu Othacehe
Hey Chris, > The behaviour is configurable, but the default missing inputs hook will > submit a new build for a missing input, but only if one doesn't already > exist. Because of this, you don't get the behaviour where some missing > prerequisite that fails to built is built over and over

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-17 Thread Efraim Flashner
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:11:11PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:29:49AM +0100, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: > > If we want to disable SBCL builds temporarily we can do something > > similar to what I did to disable Rust builds on non-x86_64 architectures > > here:

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-17 Thread Leo Famulari
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:29:49AM +0100, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: > If we want to disable SBCL builds temporarily we can do something > similar to what I did to disable Rust builds on non-x86_64 architectures > here: 0ed631866cc0b7cece2b0a0b50e39b37ae91bb67. -- diff --git

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-17 Thread Christopher Baines
Mathieu Othacehe writes: > Hello Leo & Guillaume, > >> That's a good observation. I hadn't thought of it. >> >> I'm CC-ing Mathieu Othacehe and guix-sysadmin so that we can disable >> these builds until we can fix the bug for real. Mathieu: this might >> explain why the build farm is spending

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-17 Thread Mathieu Othacehe
Hello Leo & Guillaume, > That's a good observation. I hadn't thought of it. > > I'm CC-ing Mathieu Othacehe and guix-sysadmin so that we can disable > these builds until we can fix the bug for real. Mathieu: this might > explain why the build farm is spending all its effort on aarch64. If we

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-16 Thread Leo Famulari
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 10:42:58AM +0100, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: > When taking a look at the logs of failing builds of sbcl-* packages on > aarch64-linux (for example at [1] for master or at [2] for staging), > I saw that the build jobs try to build sbcl (which is currently failing) > for

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-16 Thread Guillaume Le Vaillant
Leo Famulari skribis: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:03:47PM +0100, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: >> I tried to bootstrap sbcl using ecl instead of clisp, using >> "guix build -s aarch64-linux sbcl" on a x86-64 machine because I don't >> have any arm64 hardware, but it failed with the same memory

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-13 Thread Leo Famulari
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:03:47PM +0100, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote: > I tried to bootstrap sbcl using ecl instead of clisp, using > "guix build -s aarch64-linux sbcl" on a x86-64 machine because I don't > have any arm64 hardware, but it failed with the same memory fault. Thanks! On #guix,

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-13 Thread Guillaume Le Vaillant
Leo Famulari skribis: > I noticed that many Common Lisp or SBCL-related packages are failing to > build on the aarc64 platform on our build farm, due the failure to build > SBCL: > > From the log of : > > -- > //entering make-target-2.sh >

bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64

2021-01-12 Thread Leo Famulari
I noticed that many Common Lisp or SBCL-related packages are failing to build on the aarc64 platform on our build farm, due the failure to build SBCL: >From the log of : -- //entering make-target-2.sh //doing warm init - compilation phase This is