Failure in "guix pull"

Today's "guix pull" resulted in an error message that ends with a

request for a bug report. So here it comes:

===========================================================================

Updating channel 'guix-past' from Git repository at 'https://gitlab.inria.fr/guix-hpc/guix-past'...

Updating channel 'guix' from Git repository at 'https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git'...

guix pull: warning: moving channel 'guix' from 3e4f6d2bbc6f0f81c1487eb1bb69d8e9fe9bdbd7 to unrelated commit 34985fb6ae7deffd40443766f5408649a0cbbff2

Authenticating channel 'guix', commits 9edb3f6 to 34985fb (777 new commits)...

Building from these channels:

guix https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git 34985fb

guix-past https://gitlab.inria.fr/guix-hpc/guix-past 0f892e4

substitute: updating substitutes from 'https://ci.guix.gnu.org'... 100.0%

substitute: updating substitutes from 'https://ci.guix.gnu.org'... 100.0%

substitute: updating substitutes from 'https://ci.guix.gnu.org'... 100.0%

module-import 2KiB 25KiB/s 00:00 [##################] 100.0%

module-import-compiled 1.4MiB 1.7MiB/s 00:01 [##################] 100.0%

compute-guix-derivation 1005B 9KiB/s 00:00 [##################] 100.0%

Computing Guix derivation for 'x86_64-linux'... |Backtrace:

13 (primitive-load "/gnu/store/jbz265j88niryci4f80zfwq92vjy2xam-compute-guix-derivation")

In ice-9/eval.scm:

155:9 12 (_ _)

159:9 11 (_ #(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#(#<directory (guile-u?> ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?) ?))

In ice-9/boot-9.scm:

152:2 10 (with-fluid* _ _ _)

152:2 9 (with-fluid* _ _ _)

In ./guix/store.scm:

2076:24 8 (run-with-store #<store-connection 256.99 7f46cd7e73c0> _ #:guile-for-build _ #:system _ #:target _)

1910:8 7 (_ _)

In ./guix/gexp.scm:

256:18 6 (_ _)

1137:2 5 (_ _)

1003:2 4 (_ _)

849:4 3 (_ _)

In ./guix/store.scm:

1958:12 2 (_ #<store-connection 256.99 7f46cd7e73c0>)

1372:5 1 (map/accumulate-builds #<store-connection 256.99 7f46cd7e73c0> _ _)

1383:15 0 (_ #<store-connection 256.99 7f46cd7e73c0> _ _)

./guix/store.scm:1383:15: ERROR:

1. &store-protocol-error:

message: "some substitutes for the outputs of derivation `/gnu/store/8kj83zhzcfpp7df9jxsyarnkrbvglwri-guile-json-3.5.0.drv' failed (usually happens due to networking issues); try `--fallback' to build derivation from source "

status: 1

guix pull: error: You found a bug: the program '/gnu/store/jbz265j88niryci4f80zfwq92vjy2xam-compute-guix-derivation'

failed to compute the derivation for Guix (version: "34985fb6ae7deffd40443766f5408649a0cbbff2"; system: "x86_64-linux";

host version: "3e4f6d2bbc6f0f81c1487eb1bb69d8e9fe9bdbd7"; pull-version: 1).

Please report it by email to <bug-guix@gnu.org>.

===========================================================================

Trying the "guix pull" a short while (and one commit to Guix) later, the

error is gone. Which is a bit strange: whatever the cause of the error

was, it's hard to believe that adding the package

"python-sqlalchemy-stubs" (which is what commit

f8a4724c101880892640dcc2fe3438dc2a26b624 did) could fix it.

Konrad.

Hi Konrad!

Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net> writes:

Indeed. I note that the error message that leads to a request to the

bug report mention it could be due to a network failure, which could

explain the transient nature of the problem we see here.

Had you tried multiple times in a row with the same failure on that

commit?

Thank you,

Maxim

Hi Maxim,

Thanks for your reply!

Yes, I tried again later on two different machines, without any problem.

The reason I submitted a bug report is because Guix told me so. I

assumed that even if the root cause was a network issue, something had

then happened that shouldn't happen. If that's not the case, then the

error message should be improved. A minimal improvement would be to say

"Please report unless you see a comment about networking issues above.".

Cheers,

Konrad.

Hi Konrad,

Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hinsen@fastmail.net> writes:

I agree! We don't want people to send bug reports every time their

network is flaky, if this is indeed what has happened. Would you be

interested at surveying if that's the case in the current code? Perhaps

the right change would then become apparent.

Thank you,

Maxim

Hi Maxim,

Interested, maybe, but I am already overcommitted until the end of June.

If nobody else works on this before, I can have a look in summer.

Cheers,

Konrad