guile-sdl-0.5.2 fails to install on i686

DoneSubmitted by Luis Felipe López Acevedo.
Details
5 participants
  • Thiago Jung Bauermann
  • Efraim Flashner
  • Luis Felipe López Acevedo
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Ricardo Wurmus
Owner
unassigned
Severity
minor
L
L
Luis Felipe López Acevedo wrote on 26 Nov 2015 23:31
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
1448577083.28162.7.camel@openmailbox.org
Hi,

I'm using Guix 0.9.0 on Debian 8 (i686). Running the following command:

$ guix package -i guile-sdl

Results in the following error:

Toggle snippet (26 lines)
======================================
1 of 9 tests failed
(2 tests were not run)
Please report to bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org
======================================
Makefile:352: recipe for target 'check-TESTS' failed
make[2]: *** [check-TESTS] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory
'/tmp/nix-build-guile-sdl-0.5.2.drv-0/guile-sdl-0.5.2/test'
Makefile:475: recipe for target 'check-am' failed
make[1]: *** [check-am] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory
'/tmp/nix-build-guile-sdl-0.5.2.drv-0/guile-sdl-0.5.2/test'
Makefile:415: recipe for target 'check-recursive' failed
make: *** [check-recursive] Error 1
phase `check' failed after 24.3 seconds
builder for
`/gnu/store/zq1lxrsqsn3xkzcg0z4s88j5pgjndijm-guile-sdl-0.5.2.drv' failed
with exit code 1
cannot build derivation
`/gnu/store/0wlwdvdj7xba6kljfwxxsg4ch7ckdrgs-profile.drv': 1
dependencies couldn't be built
guix package: error: build failed: build of
`/gnu/store/0wlwdvdj7xba6kljfwxxsg4ch7ckdrgs-profile.drv' failed

Hydra also says the package is failing to build:



Thanks,

--
Luis Felipe López Acevedo
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 29 Nov 2015 12:49
Guile-SDL 0.5.2 test failure i686-linux-gnu
(address . bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org)(address . 22020@debbugs.gnu.org)
874mg5m3dk.fsf@gnu.org
Hello!

On GNU Guix, we’re seeing one 100% reproducible test failure on
i686-linux-gnu:

Toggle snippet (22 lines)
/gnu/store/isxqjfaglyfsbcv75y8qbqbph8v28ykr-bash-4.3.39/bin/bash: line 5: 838 Segmentation fault (core dumped) HAVE_TTF=1 HAVE_MIXER=0 sh zow ${dir}$tst
FAIL: gfx.scm
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/misc/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/TTF/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/OTF/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/Type1/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/100dpi/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/75dpi/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/misc/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/TTF/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/OTF/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/Type1/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/100dpi/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/75dpi/
PASS: fading.scm
======================================
1 of 9 tests failed
(2 tests were not run)
Please report to bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org
======================================

(Note that we run tests with the Xvfb server. See

The backtrace is mildly informative:

Toggle snippet (12 lines)
$ gdb $(type -P guile) core
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.10

[...]

(gdb) bt
#0 0xf4d98130 in SDL_imageFilterSubByteMMX (Src1=0x5d <error: Cannot access memory at address 0x5d>, Dest=0xffb429c8 "]",
SrcLength=4107944472, C=152 '\230') at SDL_imageFilter.c:2185
#1 0x09cfd470 in ?? ()
Backtrace stopped: previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?)

That SrcLength is so high suggests it might be an integer overflow.

This is with SDL_image 1.2.12.

To reproduce with Guix, run:

guix build guile-sdl -s i686-linux --keep-failed

Thanks,
Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 5 Feb 2016 14:13
(address . bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org)(address . 22020@debbugs.gnu.org)
87lh6zl2qn.fsf@gnu.org
Hi!

I’m not seeing the message below at

Ludo’.
X-From-Line: unknown Fri Feb 05 08:09:19 2016
X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org
Subject: bug#22020: Guile-SDL 0.5.2 test failure i686-linux-gnu
Resent-From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:51:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.22020.B22020.144879782929926@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22020
X-GNU-PR-Package: guix
X-GNU-PR-Keywords:
To: bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org, 22020@debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: 22020@debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 22020-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22020.144879782929926
(code B ref 22020); Sun, 29 Nov 2015 11:51:02 +0000
Received: (at 22020) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Nov 2015 11:50:29 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58806 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1a30Uv-0007mb-3U
for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:50:29 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49366)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1a30UZ-0007m6-Uc
for 22020@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:50:26 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1a30UU-0007B4-HE
for 22020@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:50:07 -0500
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:51956)
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
id 1a30UU-0007Aw-Er; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:50:02 -0500
Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:51244 helo=pluto)
by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128)
(Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
id 1a30UT-0006iv-J6; Sun, 29 Nov 2015 06:50:02 -0500
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
References: <1448577083.28162.7.camel@openmailbox.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2015 12:49:59 +0100
In-Reply-To: <1448577083.28162.7.camel@openmailbox.org> ("Luis Felipe
=?utf-8?Q?L=C3=B3pez?=
Acevedo"'s message of "Thu, 26 Nov 2015 17:31:23 -0500")
Message-ID: <874mg5m3dk.fsf@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address
(bad octet value).
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello!

On GNU Guix, we=E2=80=99re seeing one 100% reproducible test failure on
i686-linux-gnu:

Toggle snippet (26 lines)
/gnu/store/isxqjfaglyfsbcv75y8qbqbph8v28ykr-bash-4.3.39/bin/bash: line 5: =
838 Segmentation fault (core dumped) HAVE_TTF=3D1 HAVE_MIXER=3D0 sh z=
ow ${dir}$tst
FAIL: gfx.scm
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/misc/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/TTF/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/OTF/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/Type1/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/100dpi/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/75dpi/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/misc/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/TTF/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/OTF/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/Type1/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/100dpi/
_FontTransOpen: Unable to Parse address ${prefix}/share/fonts/X11/75dpi/
PASS: fading.scm
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
1 of 9 tests failed
(2 tests were not run)
Please report to bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

(Note that we run tests with the Xvfb server. See

The backtrace is mildly informative:

Toggle snippet (13 lines)
$ gdb $(type -P guile) core
GNU gdb (GDB) 7.10

[...]

(gdb) bt
#0 0xf4d98130 in SDL_imageFilterSubByteMMX (Src1=3D0x5d <error: Cannot acc=
ess memory at address 0x5d>, Dest=3D0xffb429c8 "]",=20
SrcLength=3D4107944472, C=3D152 '\230') at SDL_imageFilter.c:2185
#1 0x09cfd470 in ?? ()
Backtrace stopped: previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?)

That SrcLength is so high suggests it might be an integer overflow.

This is with SDL_image 1.2.12.

To reproduce with Guix, run:

guix build guile-sdl -s i686-linux --keep-failed

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.






L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 2 Jun 2016 21:41
control message for bug #22020
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87oa7j2xb1.fsf@gnu.org
severity 22020 minor
R
R
Ricardo Wurmus wrote on 14 May 2020 19:55
guile-sdl-0.5.2 fails to install on i686
(address . 22020@debbugs.gnu.org)(address . bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org)
87k11eiepr.fsf@elephly.net
Guile SDL 0.5.2 still fails on i686:

Toggle snippet (22 lines)
The XKEYBOARD keymap compiler (xkbcomp) reports:
> Internal error: Could not resolve keysym XF86FullScreen
Errors from xkbcomp are not fatal to the X server
The XKEYBOARD keymap compiler (xkbcomp) reports:
> Internal error: Could not resolve keysym XF86FullScreen
Errors from xkbcomp are not fatal to the X server
/gnu/store/v1g7f3p4f0851mywrla8qmr9hb8jgfjr-bash-minimal-5.0.16/bin/bash: line 5: 6964 Segmentation fault HAVE_TTF=1 HAVE_MIXER=0 sh zow ${dir}$tst
FAIL: gfx.scm
The XKEYBOARD keymap compiler (xkbcomp) reports:
> Internal error: Could not resolve keysym XF86FullScreen
Errors from xkbcomp are not fatal to the X server
The XKEYBOARD keymap compiler (xkbcomp) reports:
> Internal error: Could not resolve keysym XF86FullScreen
Errors from xkbcomp are not fatal to the X server
PASS: fading.scm
======================================
1 of 8 tests failed
(3 tests were not run)
Please report to bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org
======================================

I’m putting bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org in Cc, hoping that this time our
message can be delivered.

If this doesn’t work we should mark this package unsupported for
i686-linux.

--
Ricardo
E
E
Efraim Flashner wrote on 17 May 2020 14:05
(name . Ricardo Wurmus)(address . rekado@elephly.net)
20200517120548.GD31833@E5400
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 07:55:12PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
Toggle quote (35 lines)
> Guile SDL 0.5.2 still fails on i686:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> The XKEYBOARD keymap compiler (xkbcomp) reports:
> > Internal error: Could not resolve keysym XF86FullScreen
> Errors from xkbcomp are not fatal to the X server
> The XKEYBOARD keymap compiler (xkbcomp) reports:
> > Internal error: Could not resolve keysym XF86FullScreen
> Errors from xkbcomp are not fatal to the X server
> /gnu/store/v1g7f3p4f0851mywrla8qmr9hb8jgfjr-bash-minimal-5.0.16/bin/bash: line 5: 6964 Segmentation fault HAVE_TTF=1 HAVE_MIXER=0 sh zow ${dir}$tst
> FAIL: gfx.scm
> The XKEYBOARD keymap compiler (xkbcomp) reports:
> > Internal error: Could not resolve keysym XF86FullScreen
> Errors from xkbcomp are not fatal to the X server
> The XKEYBOARD keymap compiler (xkbcomp) reports:
> > Internal error: Could not resolve keysym XF86FullScreen
> Errors from xkbcomp are not fatal to the X server
> PASS: fading.scm
> ======================================
> 1 of 8 tests failed
> (3 tests were not run)
> Please report to bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org
> ======================================
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> I’m putting bug-guile-sdl@gnu.org in Cc, hoping that this time our
> message can be delivered.
>
> If this doesn’t work we should mark this package unsupported for
> i686-linux.
>
> --
> Ricardo
>

I also took a look at this package last week and I saw it still failed
the tests on i686-linux. I would like to note, however, that it does
build and pass the test suite on powerpc-linux.

--
Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=l6EB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


T
T
Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote on 20 Jun 00:59 +0200
[PATCH] gnu: guile-sdl: Update to 0.6.1
(address . 22020@debbugs.gnu.org)(name . Thiago Jung Bauermann)(address . bauermann@kolabnow.com)
20220619225911.105125-1-bauermann@kolabnow.com
This version's testsuite passes on i686-linux.


* gnu/packages/sdl.scm (guile-sdl): Update to 0.6.1.
---

Hello,

I was looking at bug 22020 (guile-sdl-0.5.2 fails to install on i686) and
noticed that upgrading guile-sdl to the latest version fixes the problem so
this is what this patch does.

Note that the diff between 0.5.3 and 0.6.1 has almost 24k lines so I didn't
even try skimming it.

I did verify the tarball's signature using the maintainer's (expired) public
key that I downloaded from Savannah¹:

$ gpg --verify guile-sdl-0.6.1.tar.lz.sig
gpg: assuming signed data in 'guile-sdl-0.6.1.tar.lz'
gpg: Signature made Sun Feb 20 21:16:09 2022 -03
gpg: using DSA key 748EA0E81CB8A7489BFA6CE4670322244C807502
gpg: Good signature from "Thien-Thi Nguyen (software signing) <ttn@gnuvola.org>" [expired]
gpg: aka "Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnuvola.org>" [expired]
gpg: aka "Thien-Thi Nguyen <ttn@gnu.org>" [expired]
gpg: Note: This key has expired!
Primary key fingerprint: 748E A0E8 1CB8 A748 9BFA 6CE4 6703 2224 4C80 7502

I'll send a message to the guile-sdl mailing list suggesting them to publish
a new key.

Thanks,
Thiago


gnu/packages/sdl.scm | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Toggle diff (24 lines)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/sdl.scm b/gnu/packages/sdl.scm
index 4c38e2f05507..49bc09312a13 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/sdl.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/sdl.scm
@@ -541,7 +541,7 @@ (define-public sdl2-ttf
 (define-public guile-sdl
   (package
     (name "guile-sdl")
-    (version "0.5.3")
+    (version "0.6.1")
     (source (origin
               (method url-fetch)
               (uri
@@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ (define-public guile-sdl
                               version ".tar.lz"))
               (sha256
                (base32
-                "040gyk3n3yp8i30ngdg97n3083g8b6laky2nlh10jqcyjdd550d6"))))
+                "1q985nd3birr5pny74915x098fisa6llas3ijgf1b4gdz5717nzz"))))
     (build-system gnu-build-system)
     (native-inputs
      `(("lzip" ,lzip)

base-commit: 73761d8049f483e6685c2c736872d0366e03238a
E
E
Efraim Flashner wrote on 1 Sep 15:07 +0200
(name . Thiago Jung Bauermann)(address . bauermann@kolabnow.com)(address . 22020-done@debbugs.gnu.org)
YxCuq8Vg8OyxlbsS@3900XT
It's been a while since you submitted this patch, but it's applied now.
Thanks!

--
Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAmMQrqsACgkQQarn3Mo9
g1EU/A/+LgJfa4mbirph+nhqHE3YjCuf4nerZvTavmnKzZE26DzSNQCROIdLpQwY
nwJct6/SqUDwLOv/ZMymTEedpEBYd0dAIG/Ag9dN5CTJZin/7lirZup1HnR51sEn
g8jJgP0lXMbLbup6FntNFvO1llh/53O5UMO2tSryJ8FcggoJpUZz/nTXnV8/3/58
Fc/f+jxa23tQQzYFyVK0y+0EyI/uhAXQ7jt5MKiMkJzSc7/w9BQRn+21LfozVBWZ
afLnSbfhaqmQrfKA6HNuZPoLK3ebM3KjlUFGGrzrWB+A25v4zagRzD2fU2zs0+vI
aV8ZA+lPzrJ1wnCzFYF2eevKQMaXX7xTMGrRo8mcjQWQ6oBeLYn+sUJGeYWYsrXE
jk4mJDj3fqLHaCkTlk0chklsgqFxbgFk9461+qcoTqlYUhVvvJtgSI+I3lwSTTOk
D+6z4nSk7eK0txdFUyhhPvXRx2XDCGBtFMwH/nS+ZoL/aw+0BcxZGZ/nicqKKAma
eXNxlN0fZoWTufCT66+Z4+YgU/fFQeIt8mQxFK+jqCIKwIuWG9vXgrNErbej8CF8
TkhwQQ1RDFtAlB1c0+HUHIUAiK5qlebnr80F872plZeRvS1l/oF62AsHvdBD+1rk
Lr3Lqf3ySgUg47fPK72Urncmv+860ERUEw6oJtqvsvFGVCH36LY=
=PxOf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Closed
T
T
Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote on 3 Sep 04:58 +0200
(name . Efraim Flashner)(address . efraim@flashner.co.il)(address . 22020-done@debbugs.gnu.org)
87zgfh88pb.fsf@kolabnow.com
Hello Efraim,

Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:

Toggle quote (4 lines)
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> It's been a while since you submitted this patch, but it's applied now.
> Thanks!

I had forgotten about this patch. Thank you!

--
Thanks
Thiago
Closed
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send email to 22020@debbugs.gnu.org