Request for merging "gnome-team" branch

Done

Details

6 participants

Ada Stevenson
Liliana Marie Prikler
Ludovic Courtès
Christopher Baines
Maxim Cournoyer
Vivien Kraus

Owner: unassigned

Submitted by: Liliana Marie Prikler

Severity: normal

Blocked by

69392

Liliana Marie Prikler wrote on 26 Feb 20:54 +0100

Recipients:(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)

Message-ID:1b192d1d8a2c7d55c59f6b063054811177212834.camel@gmail.com

Hi Guix,

we're *almost* done on gnome-team. We're still waiting for news and

bug reports though.

kthxbye

Liliana Marie Prikler wrote on 26 Feb 21:08 +0100

Recipients:(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:bb72cecd3aa656cc411689a1a53e53dbe6f147b8.camel@gmail.com

block 69414 by 69392

thanks

Ada Stevenson wrote on 27 Feb 06:34 +0100

Recipients:(address . 69414@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:e74244a6-93c0-2d36-728a-29a8becf386e@gmail.com

This is exciting news! I'm going to reconfigure to the gnome-team branch

and see if anything appears immediately broken.

Thanks to everyone who worked on this! Super stoked :)

Warmly,

Ada

Christopher Baines wrote on 8 Mar 11:40 +0100

Re: [bug#69414] Request for merging "gnome-team" branch

Recipients:(name . Liliana Marie Prikler)(address . liliana.prikler@gmail.com)(address . 69414@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:871q8lknpv.fsf@cbaines.net

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:

Toggle quote (3 lines)

> we're *almost* done on gnome-team. We're still waiting for news and

> bug reports though.

I gave up waiting for the data service to process gnome-team and added
some prioritisation to expedite the processing of branches.

This means that builds for gnome-team have now started, unfortunately
it'll be at least a week or two until there's good substitute
availability, but it's coming.

Liliana Marie Prikler wrote on 16 Mar 23:46 +0100

Recipients:(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)(address . 69414@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:2317572bb26acd16989b35c758b1e4b812a3c3c2.camel@gmail.com

Am Freitag, dem 08.03.2024 um 10:40 +0000 schrieb Christopher Baines:

Toggle quote (12 lines)> 
> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > we're *almost* done on gnome-team.� We're still waiting for news
> > and bug reports though.
> 
> I gave up waiting for the data service to process gnome-team and
> added some prioritisation to expedite the processing of branches.
> 
> This means that builds for gnome-team have now started, unfortunately
> it'll be at least a week or two until there's good substitute
> availability, but it's coming.

Thanks, we're already seeing some bug fixes on gnome-team, so it seems

to have helped (at least a little). Now we just need to see whether

44.10 does another world rebuild or whether it's on a smaller scale.

Cheers

Christopher Baines wrote on 20 Mar 11:42 +0100

Re: [bug#69911] [PATCH gnome-team 0/6] GNOME 44.10 update

Recipients:(name . Vivien Kraus)(address . vivien@planete-kraus.eu)

Message-ID:875xxhkwju.fsf@cbaines.net

Vivien Kraus via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (5 lines)

> Dear Guix,

> GNOME 44.10 is out. I could not test it, because I don’t have enough disk

> space for the world rebuild.

I picked all but the vala and gtkmm@3 update (as those both have lots of

dependents), applied them to gnome-team and things seem to build

fine. I've also reconfigured to gnome-team and haven't come across any

problems yet. I've now pushed those patches to gnome-team.

I don't know much about the substance of the changes on gnome-team, but

the substitute availability is looking good at least (it's just

i686-linux that's lagging behind on bordeaux).

I'll close this issue but feel free to re-send the vala and gtkmm@3

updates to a new issue.

Is there anything that needs to happen before gnome-team can be merged?

Thanks,

Chris

Vivien Kraus wrote on 20 Mar 13:25 +0100

Recipients:(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)

Message-ID:1631dd6cefebcfda0c8bd76d0f054e34e1c6dbc6.camel@planete-kraus.eu

Hello,

Le mercredi 20 mars 2024 à 10:42 +0000, Christopher Baines a écrit�:

Toggle quote (3 lines)

> Is there anything that needs to happen before gnome-team can be

> merged?

There are concerning failures, such as lightdm, that must be

investigated. QA has also highlighted flaky tests in a bunch of

packages, and a time-bomb (kcalendarcore).

I will resubmit the world-rebuilding patches in a new issue.

Best regards,

Vivien

Christopher Baines wrote on 20 Mar 14:58 +0100

Recipients:(name . Vivien Kraus)(address . vivien@planete-kraus.eu)

Message-ID:871q85knq9.fsf@cbaines.net

Vivien Kraus <vivien@planete-kraus.eu> writes:

Toggle quote (10 lines)> Hello,
>
> Le mercredi 20 mars 2024 à 10:42 +0000, Christopher Baines a écrit�:
>> Is there anything that needs to happen before gnome-team can be
>> merged?
>
> There are concerning failures, such as lightdm, that must be
> investigated. QA has also highlighted flaky tests in a bunch of
> packages, and a time-bomb (kcalendarcore).

I had a go to looking in to lightdm not building and it looks to maybe
be dbus related, but I've got no idea really. Debian and nixpkgs don't
even run the test suite as far as I can tell. I also tried the system
test and that seems to pass. So maybe we raise the issue with upstream
and disable the testsuite for now.

Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 20 Mar 19:29 +0100

Recipients:(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)

Message-ID:878r2cn4e0.fsf@gmail.com

Hi Christopher,

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

Toggle quote (18 lines)> Vivien Kraus <vivien@planete-kraus.eu> writes:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le mercredi 20 mars 2024 à 10:42 +0000, Christopher Baines a écrit�:
>>> Is there anything that needs to happen before gnome-team can be
>>> merged?
>>
>> There are concerning failures, such as lightdm, that must be
>> investigated. QA has also highlighted flaky tests in a bunch of
>> packages, and a time-bomb (kcalendarcore).
>
> I had a go to looking in to lightdm not building and it looks to maybe
> be dbus related, but I've got no idea really. Debian and nixpkgs don't
> even run the test suite as far as I can tell. I also tried the system
> test and that seems to pass. So maybe we raise the issue with upstream
> and disable the testsuite for now.

I'd rather we spend a bit of time investigating the underlying failure
and engage with upstream if there's a need.  Setting #:tests? #f is
easy, but it means the sometimes serious efforts that were needed to
enable the test suite go into bitrot, making it harder to re-enable at
a later time (thus unlikely).

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Christopher Baines wrote on 21 Mar 16:23 +0100

Recipients:(name . Maxim Cournoyer)(address . maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com)

Message-ID:877chvk35z.fsf@cbaines.net

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:

Toggle quote (28 lines)> Hi Christopher,
>
> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> Vivien Kraus <vivien@planete-kraus.eu> writes:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Le mercredi 20 mars 2024 à 10:42 +0000, Christopher Baines a écrit�:
>>>> Is there anything that needs to happen before gnome-team can be
>>>> merged?
>>>
>>> There are concerning failures, such as lightdm, that must be
>>> investigated. QA has also highlighted flaky tests in a bunch of
>>> packages, and a time-bomb (kcalendarcore).
>>
>> I had a go to looking in to lightdm not building and it looks to maybe
>> be dbus related, but I've got no idea really. Debian and nixpkgs don't
>> even run the test suite as far as I can tell. I also tried the system
>> test and that seems to pass. So maybe we raise the issue with upstream
>> and disable the testsuite for now.
>
> I'd rather we spend a bit of time investigating the underlying failure
> and engage with upstream if there's a need.  Setting #:tests? #f is
> easy, but it means the sometimes serious efforts that were needed to
> enable the test suite go into bitrot, making it harder to re-enable at
> a later time (thus unlikely).

To elaborate on the point I'm trying to make, having spent a bit of time
looking in to this specific issue, I don't think it's worth blocking the
gnome-team merge over an issue with running the lightdm testsuite.

Obviously if there's actually an issue with lightdm, then that's
different. This is also somewhat personal since I've got almost no
knowledge about lightdm or the dbus problems I suspect might be related.

Christopher Baines wrote on 27 Mar 13:23 +0100

Recipients:(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)

Message-ID:87a5mjhncf.fsf@cbaines.net

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:

Toggle quote (38 lines)> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Christopher,
>>
>> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
>>
>>> Vivien Kraus <vivien@planete-kraus.eu> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Le mercredi 20 mars 2024 à 10:42 +0000, Christopher Baines a écrit�:
>>>>> Is there anything that needs to happen before gnome-team can be
>>>>> merged?
>>>>
>>>> There are concerning failures, such as lightdm, that must be
>>>> investigated. QA has also highlighted flaky tests in a bunch of
>>>> packages, and a time-bomb (kcalendarcore).
>>>
>>> I had a go to looking in to lightdm not building and it looks to maybe
>>> be dbus related, but I've got no idea really. Debian and nixpkgs don't
>>> even run the test suite as far as I can tell. I also tried the system
>>> test and that seems to pass. So maybe we raise the issue with upstream
>>> and disable the testsuite for now.
>>
>> I'd rather we spend a bit of time investigating the underlying failure
>> and engage with upstream if there's a need.  Setting #:tests? #f is
>> easy, but it means the sometimes serious efforts that were needed to
>> enable the test suite go into bitrot, making it harder to re-enable at
>> a later time (thus unlikely).
>
> To elaborate on the point I'm trying to make, having spent a bit of time
> looking in to this specific issue, I don't think it's worth blocking the
> gnome-team merge over an issue with running the lightdm testsuite.
>
> Obviously if there's actually an issue with lightdm, then that's
> different. This is also somewhat personal since I've got almost no
> knowledge about lightdm or the dbus problems I suspect might be related.

Thanks to Vivian's patch (#69948) we're now building lightdm with an

older dbus.

I had a look for failures in QA and I didn't really see

anything. There's some issue with the tests for gtk on aarch64-linux,

not sure what's going on there, but I don't think that blocks merging.

Is there anything that needs to happen before gnome-team can be merged?

Thanks,

Chris

Liliana Marie Prikler wrote on 27 Mar 18:53 +0100

Recipients:(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)

Message-ID:9a8b841443d4504cdd2e53682d2f874646fd9f38.camel@gmail.com

Am Mittwoch, dem 27.03.2024 um 12:23 +0000 schrieb Christopher Baines:

Toggle quote (65 lines)> 
> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
> 
> > Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Hi Christopher,
> > > 
> > > Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
> > > 
> > > > Vivien Kraus <vivien@planete-kraus.eu> writes:
> > > > 
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Le mercredi 20 mars 2024 à 10:42 +0000, Christopher Baines a
> > > > > écrit�:
> > > > > > Is there anything that needs to happen before gnome-team
> > > > > > can be
> > > > > > merged?
> > > > > 
> > > > > There are concerning failures, such as lightdm, that must be
> > > > > investigated. QA has also highlighted flaky tests in a bunch
> > > > > of
> > > > > packages, and a time-bomb (kcalendarcore).
> > > > 
> > > > I had a go to looking in to lightdm not building and it looks
> > > > to maybe
> > > > be dbus related, but I've got no idea really. Debian and
> > > > nixpkgs don't
> > > > even run the test suite as far as I can tell. I also tried the
> > > > system
> > > > test and that seems to pass. So maybe we raise the issue with
> > > > upstream
> > > > and disable the testsuite for now.
> > > 
> > > I'd rather we spend a bit of time investigating the underlying
> > > failure
> > > and engage with upstream if there's a need.� Setting #:tests? #f
> > > is
> > > easy, but it means the sometimes serious efforts that were needed
> > > to
> > > enable the test suite go into bitrot, making it harder to re-
> > > enable at
> > > a later time (thus unlikely).
> > 
> > To elaborate on the point I'm trying to make, having spent a bit of
> > time
> > looking in to this specific issue, I don't think it's worth
> > blocking the
> > gnome-team merge over an issue with running the lightdm testsuite.
> > 
> > Obviously if there's actually an issue with lightdm, then that's
> > different. This is also somewhat personal since I've got almost no
> > knowledge about lightdm or the dbus problems I suspect might be
> > related.
> 
> Thanks to Vivian's patch (#69948) we're now building lightdm with an
> older dbus.
> 
> I had a look for failures in QA and I didn't really see
> anything. There's some issue with the tests for gtk on aarch64-linux,
> not sure what's going on there, but I don't think that blocks
> merging.
> 
> Is there anything that needs to happen before gnome-team can be
> merged?

QA also LGTM, let's get this merged.

Ada Stevenson wrote on 28 Mar 08:17 +0100

Request for merging "gnome-team" branch

Recipients:(address . 69414@debbugs.gnu.org)

Message-ID:8e7950d3-b43c-ca30-e90e-323cd3642b1a@gmail.com

Hi all,

I think the updated news file needs to be committed [1], but I don't see

anything else to do before the merge. Thanks everyone! Lily and Vivien

in particular :) Excited to get a GNOME update!!

[1] https://issues.guix.gnu.org/69392

Warmly,

Ada

Liliana Marie Prikler wrote on 30 Mar 10:08 +0100

Emacs and Gnome branches are merged now

Recipients:(address . guix-devel@gnu.org)

Message-ID:d49bdf6f6ba7fac37f8d8a0f74134560bcbcbbc4.camel@gmail.com

Hey Guix,

I've now pushed the merge commits for both emacs-team and gnome-team.

If you have a weak machine, PLEASE DO NOT PULL IMMEDIATELY AND WAIT FOR

CI TO CATCH UP! Despite efforts to prebuild things on the respective

branches, the merge commit carries with it a rebuild of the most nasty

package to have to compile locally.

Happy Easter!

Closed

Christopher Baines wrote on 30 Mar 15:20 +0100

Recipients:(name . Liliana Marie Prikler)(address . liliana.prikler@gmail.com)

Message-ID:875xx3sqpo.fsf@cbaines.net

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:

Toggle quote (2 lines)

> I've now pushed the merge commits for both emacs-team and gnome-team.

Thank you to everyone involved in getting these changes through :D

Toggle quote (5 lines)

> If you have a weak machine, PLEASE DO NOT PULL IMMEDIATELY AND WAIT FOR

> CI TO CATCH UP! Despite efforts to prebuild things on the respective

> branches, the merge commit carries with it a rebuild of the most nasty

> package to have to compile locally.

I've had a look in to this as it would be good to work out how this
happened, and how we might avoid it in the future.

I had a look at QEMU and gtk, diffing the derivations from the
gnome-team branch prior to the merge to the master branch after the
merge.

QEMU was affected by the usbutils update in
855fecf00f7df8bf878a8ecd47800ea9bdfebea5, which was pushed to master on
the 26th of March. For gtk, it was affected by the psmisc update in
a2d82fbec4254cf6127b15aa3e827d22da235c30 which was pushed at the same
time.

I think the last merge of master in to gnome-team was pushed on the 20th
of March, with the merge of gnome-team in to master being pushed today
on the 30th.

Looking at those dates, it seems like bringing changes from master in to
branches more frequently, or at least just before considering whether
it's ready to merge (and merging if it is) would help to avoid this. 10
days is a long window in which changes can be pushed to master. QA is
meant to pick up when a branch has diverged from master, but the
mechanism is crude and the threshold it was using was very high. I've
now reduced it [1] so QA might warn in the future about this situation.

1: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/qa-frontpage.git/commit/?id=b1d7225636d7c1946f4718d6441a621d51f8cd6a

While I don't think it's directly relevant, I think it's worth noting
that both changes mentioned above (usbutils and psmisc), we didn't
follow our own guidance on managing patches. psmisc affects more than
300 dependent packages, and while I think that's less of an issue if
changes go through QA, I don't think either of these changes did.

Closed

Ludovic Courtès wrote on 10 Apr 16:04 +0200

Recipients:(name . Liliana Marie Prikler)(address . liliana.prikler@gmail.com)

Message-ID:87msq1l3fi.fsf@gnu.org

Hello,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> skribis:

Toggle quote (6 lines)

> I've now pushed the merge commits for both emacs-team and gnome-team.

> If you have a weak machine, PLEASE DO NOT PULL IMMEDIATELY AND WAIT FOR

> CI TO CATCH UP! Despite efforts to prebuild things on the respective

> branches, the merge commit carries with it a rebuild of the most nasty

> package to have to compile locally.

Congrats to you and everyone involved!

Ludo’.

Closed

Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 69414@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it

mumi current 69414

Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)

mumi am -- -s

Or, compose a reply to this issue

mumi compose

Or, send patches to this issue

mumi send-email *.patch

is:open	open issues
is:done	closed issues
submitter:<who>	search issue submitter
author:<who>	search by message author
date:yesterday..now	search by issue date
mdate:3m..2d	search by message date