[PATCH] gnu: guile: Update to 3.0.10.

  • Open
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
2 participants
  • Thompson, David
  • Ludovic Courtès
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Thompson, David
Severity
normal
T
T
Thompson, David wrote on 18 Jul 22:16 +0200
(name . Ryan Prior via Guix-patches)(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
CAJ=RwfYdQbbUqCLt5A69t2Dsr1kj-JE_J9j4_B+iJOvDgNGORQ@mail.gmail.com
I thought this would be an easy upgrade, but it seems that it will
cause a lot of churn. 'guix refresh' says:

Building the following 1640 packages would ensure 3146 dependent
packages are rebuilt

I believe this is because Shepherd is built against guile-3.0-latest,
and elogind depends on Shepherd.

Guix *should* be in a position to get fresh Guile builds quickly, but
I guess this process will be slow until the guile-3.0 package can be
upgraded to 3.0.10 (which will require a world rebuild) at which point
Shepherd can return to using guile-3.0.

There's a lot of compiler improvements and bug fixes in 3.0.10, so it
would be nice to have this update land soon. After this, I can update
guile-hoot depend on it rather than guile-next. Several other packages
depending on guile-next could also be upgraded to use guile-3.0-latest
instead, such as guile-ares-rs.

Who can help me "shepherd" this upgrade? ;)

Thanks,

- Dave
From f6c6486dab767ba50c4c2ffbb55f10bbf4ee1000 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-ID: <f6c6486dab767ba50c4c2ffbb55f10bbf4ee1000.1721332994.git.dthompson2@worcester.edu>
From: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 14:54:20 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: guile: Update to 3.0.10.

* gnu/packages/guile.scm (guile-3.0-latest): Update to 3.0.10.

Change-Id: Id9d58199f1fa3307c94f442c185307d2f4a9ce6f
---
gnu/packages/guile.scm | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Toggle diff (36 lines)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/guile.scm b/gnu/packages/guile.scm
index e8705dc7d2..077b7b7d37 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/guile.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/guile.scm
@@ -322,7 +322,6 @@ (define-public guile-2.2.4
"07p3g0v2ba2vlfbfidqzlgbhnzdx46wh2rgc5gszq1mjyx5bks6r"))))))
(define-public guile-3.0
- ;; This is the latest Guile stable version.
(package
(inherit guile-2.2)
(name "guile")
@@ -438,7 +437,18 @@ (define-public guile-3.0
(files '("lib/guile/3.0/site-ccache"
"share/guile/site/3.0")))))))
-(define-public guile-3.0-latest guile-3.0)
+(define-public guile-3.0-latest
+ ;; This is the latest Guile stable version.
+ (package
+ (inherit guile-3.0)
+ (version "3.0.10")
+ (source (origin
+ (inherit (package-source guile-3.0))
+ (uri (string-append "mirror://gnu/guile/guile-"
+ version ".tar.xz"))
+ (sha256
+ (base32
+ "1233wzcbiqhp5qr3ggag14s5d4i7cn0spxyl8qs369nmgx8nhwdx"))))))
;;; The symbol guile-3.0/fixed should be used when guile-3.0 needs fixes
;;; (security or else) and this deprecation could be removed.

base-commit: e3dfed59d39ac60dd2e2b9ef9f4ef63a2a081f41
--
2.41.0
T
T
Thompson, David wrote on 18 Jul 22:49 +0200
[PATCH] gnu: shepherd 0.9: Switch from guile-3.0-latest to guile-3.0.
(address . 72183@debbugs.gnu.org)
CAJ=Rwfa7Mxycv0GVcRbPnbnNK9G=KrNDNOL7DQA9WwAXScsiMw@mail.gmail.com
Thanks to Efraim for pointing out that we could simply switch Shepherd
to refer to guile-3.0 instead of guile-3.0-latest. The attached patch
does this.

Now updating guile-3.0-latest causes much less churn:

Building the following 23 packages would ensure 47 dependent packages
are rebuilt: guile-studio@0.1.1-1.dd0ad42 guile-chickadee@0.10.0
guile-gemini@0.1 guile-openai@0.2-1.751cd5d guile-newra@0-0.266e72e
haunt@0.3.0 guile-bash@0.1.6-0.1eabc56 lokke@0.0.0-1.92d3637
swineherd@0.0.4 cuirass@1.2.0-6.0eaf7b6 emacs-guix@0.5.2-7.455272c
guile-imanifest@0.0.0-0.ccd5a21 cl-ospm@0.0.2 guix-jupyter@0.2.2
guix-build-coordinator-agent-only@0-109.406db8a
nar-herder@0-37.82f9371 guix-minimal@1.4.0-23.843b85c gwl@0.5.1
gwl-next@0.5.0-1.706a089 guix-modules@0.1.0
guix-daemon@1.4.0-23.843b85c bffe@0-6.7df2aa6 hpcguix-web@0.4.1

- Dave
From 76c82888fefcef1226c6d18a4cf790d5e02d1c32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-ID: <76c82888fefcef1226c6d18a4cf790d5e02d1c32.1721335570.git.dthompson2@worcester.edu>
From: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:43:32 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: shepherd 0.9: Switch from guile-3.0-latest to guile-3.0.

* gnu/packages/admin.scm (shepherd-0.9)[native-inputs]: Use guile-3.0.
[inputs]: Ditto.

Change-Id: I7f7efabc43e11e413300c6aa4c22919070d22389
---
gnu/packages/admin.scm | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

Toggle diff (22 lines)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/admin.scm b/gnu/packages/admin.scm
index ae0637fd2c..cf9693ac25 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/admin.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/admin.scm
@@ -385,11 +385,9 @@ (define-public shepherd-0.9
"/lib/guile/3.0/site-ccache"))))))
#~%standard-phases)))
- ;; Note: Use 'guile-3.0-latest' to address the continuation-related memory
- ;; leak reported at <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/58631>.
- (native-inputs (list pkg-config guile-3.0-latest
+ (native-inputs (list pkg-config guile-3.0
guile-fibers-1.1)) ;for cross-compilation
- (inputs (list guile-3.0-latest guile-fibers-1.1))))
+ (inputs (list guile-3.0 guile-fibers-1.1))))
(define-public shepherd-0.10
(package

base-commit: e3dfed59d39ac60dd2e2b9ef9f4ef63a2a081f41
--
2.41.0
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 19 Jul 18:32 +0200
Re: [bug#72183] [PATCH] gnu: guile: Update to 3.0.10.
(name . Thompson, David)(address . dthompson2@worcester.edu)(address . 72183@debbugs.gnu.org)
87zfqds5pv.fsf@gnu.org
"Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> skribis:

Toggle quote (21 lines)
> From f6c6486dab767ba50c4c2ffbb55f10bbf4ee1000 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> Message-ID: <f6c6486dab767ba50c4c2ffbb55f10bbf4ee1000.1721332994.git.dthompson2@worcester.edu>
> From: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 14:54:20 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: guile: Update to 3.0.10.
>
> * gnu/packages/guile.scm (guile-3.0-latest): Update to 3.0.10.
>
> Change-Id: Id9d58199f1fa3307c94f442c185307d2f4a9ce6f

> From 76c82888fefcef1226c6d18a4cf790d5e02d1c32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> Message-ID: <76c82888fefcef1226c6d18a4cf790d5e02d1c32.1721335570.git.dthompson2@worcester.edu>
> From: David Thompson <dthompson2@worcester.edu>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:43:32 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: shepherd 0.9: Switch from guile-3.0-latest to guile-3.0.
>
> * gnu/packages/admin.scm (shepherd-0.9)[native-inputs]: Use guile-3.0.
> [inputs]: Ditto.
>
> Change-Id: I7f7efabc43e11e413300c6aa4c22919070d22389

LGTM. (Commit the Shepherd patch first.)

Thank you! :-)

Ludo’.
T
T
Thompson, David wrote on 19 Jul 19:09 +0200
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 72183-done@debbugs.gnu.org)
CAJ=RwfYtEZf9zNSbhicaQ0Tacnss1373QBnS_TmhhgbN2CkNdw@mail.gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 12:32?PM Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
Toggle quote (3 lines)
>
> LGTM. (Commit the Shepherd patch first.)

Pushed! Thanks for the review!

- Dave
Closed
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 19 Jul 22:18 +0200
control message for bug #72183
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87h6clrv8c.fsf@gnu.org
reopen 72183
tags 72183 - fixed patch
quit
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 19 Jul 22:40 +0200
Re: [bug#72183] [PATCH] gnu: guile: Update to 3.0.10.
(name . Thompson, David)(address . dthompson2@worcester.edu)(address . 72183@debbugs.gnu.org)
874j8lru82.fsf@gnu.org
Hey,

I temporarily reverted the commits that upgrade Guile and adjust Hoot in
31244f5cefae4c14a1a5d441dc3b3626b5f32abc so we can investigate the issue
below (which broke ‘guix pull’) without pressure.

Turns out ‘guile-3.0-latest’ is used to build Guix itself (via ‘guix
pull’, but also the ‘guix’ package) and this cause a failure of
guix-cli-core.drv:

Toggle snippet (76 lines)
error: failed to compile 'guix/scripts/authenticate.scm':

In language/tree-il/peval.scm:
1558:45 19 (loop _ _ _ value)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
586:17 18 (map1 (#<tree-il (call (@ (guile) format) (const #f) (const "(signature ~a ~a ~a)") (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical data t1416)) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) sign) (lexical data t1416) (lexical secret-key t1418))) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical public-key t1420)))>))
In language/tree-il/peval.scm:
1558:45 17 (loop _ _ _ value)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
586:29 16 (map1 (#<tree-il (const #f)> #<tree-il (const "(signature ~a ~a ~a)")> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical data t1416))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) sign) (lexical data t1416) (lexical secret-key t1418)))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical public-key t1420))>))
586:29 15 (map1 (#<tree-il (const "(signature ~a ~a ~a)")> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical data t1416))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) sign) (lexical data t1416) (lexical secret-key t1418)))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical public-key t1420))>))
586:17 14 (map1 (#<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical data t1416))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) sign) (lexical data t1416) (lexical secret-key t1418)))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical public-key t1420))>))
In language/tree-il/peval.scm:

error: failed to compile 'guix/scripts/publish.scm':

In language/tree-il/peval.scm:
1558:45 13 (loop _ _ _ value)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
586:17 12 (map1 (#<tree-il (lexical data t1416)>))
In language/tree-il/peval.scm:
1558:45 19 (loop _ _ _ values)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
586:17 18 (map1 (#<tree-il (call (@ (guile) format) (const #f) (const "(signature ~a ~a ~a)") (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical data t6047)) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) sign) (lexical data t6047) (lexical secret-key t6048))) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical public-key t6049)))>))
In language/tree-il/peval.scm:
887:11 11 (loop _ _ #<<counter> effort: #<variable 7fffe74eca90 value: 484> size: #<variable 7fffe74eca80 value: 20> continuation: #<procedure abort ()> recursive?: #t data: #<tree-il (lambda ((name . signature-sexp)) (lambda-case (((data secret-key public-key) #f #f #f () (t1416 t1418 t1420)) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) string->canonical-sexp) (call (@ (guile) format) (const #f) (const "(signature ~a ~a ~a)") (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical data t1416)) (cal?> ?)
371:20 10 (visit-operand #<<operand> var: #<<var> name: data gensym: data-ae6ce62b6fb2770-3a7 refcount: 1 set?: #f> sym: #{data 1412}# visit: #<procedure 7fffecafb040 at language/tree-il/peval.scm:1011:40 (exp counter ctx)> source: #<tree-il (primcall values (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) bytevector->hash-data) (lexical sha256 sha256-ae6ce62b6fb2770-39d) (const #:key-type) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) key-type) (lexical public-key public-key-ae6ce62b6fb2770-39b))))> visit-count: 1 use-count:?> ?)

1558:45 17 (loop _ _ _ value)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
586:29 16 (map1 (#<tree-il (const #f)> #<tree-il (const "(signature ~a ~a ~a)")> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical data t6047))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) sign) (lexical data t6047) (lexical secret-key t6048)))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical public-key t6049))>))
586:29 15 (map1 (#<tree-il (const "(signature ~a ~a ~a)")> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical data t6047))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) sign) (lexical data t6047) (lexical secret-key t6048)))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical public-key t6049))>))
586:17 14 (map1 (#<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical data t6047))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) sign) (lexical data t6047) (lexical secret-key t6048)))> #<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->string) (lexical public-key t6049))>))
In language/tree-il/peval.scm:
1319:22 9 (loop _ #<vhash 7fffecafb0a0 92 pairs> #<<counter> effort: #<variable 7fffe74eca90 value: 484> size: #<variable 7fffe74eca80 value: 20> continuation: #<procedure abort ()> recursive?: #t data: #<tree-il (lambda ((name . signature-sexp)) (lambda-case (((data secret-key public-key) #f #f #f () (t1416 t1418 t1420)) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) string->canonical-sexp) (call (@ (guile) format) (const #f) (const "(signature ~a ~a ~a)") (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) canonical-sexp->strin?> ?)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
586:17 8 (map1 (#<tree-il (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) bytevector->hash-data) (lexical sha256 sha256-ae6ce62b6fb2770-39d) (const #:key-type) (call (@ (gcrypt pk-crypto) key-type) (lexical public-key public-key-ae6ce62b6fb2770-39b)))>))
In language/tree-il/peval.scm:
1558:45 13 (loop _ _ _ value)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
586:17 12 (map1 (#<tree-il (lexical data t6047)>))
In language/tree-il/peval.scm:
1762:18 7 (loop _ _ _ _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
1676:22 6 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)
1676:22 5 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)
1802:13 4 (_ #<&compound-exception components: (#<&error> #<&origin origin: #f> #<&message message: "internal error: unexpected kwarg syms ~S ~S"> #<&irritants irritants: (((#:key-type key-type #f)) (t1441))> #<&exception-with-kind-and-args kind: misc-error args: (#f "internal error: unexpected kwarg syms ~S ~S" (((#:key-type key-type #f)) (t1441)) #f)>)>)
In guix/build/compile.scm:
191:6 3
[ 36/ 50] compiling... 44.0% of 25 files(_ misc-error #f "internal error: unexpected kwarg syms ~S ~S" (((#:key-type key-type #f)) (t1441)) #f)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
1749:15 2 (with-exception-handler #<procedure 7fffec498f30 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:1853:7 (exn)> _ #:unwind? _ #:unwind-for-type _)
In guix/build/compile.scm:
194:21 1 (_)
In unknown file:
0 (make-stack #t)
guix/build/compile.scm:194:21: internal error: unexpected kwarg syms ((#:key-type key-type #f)) (t1441)

[ 38/ 50] compiling... 52.0% of 25 files
[ 38/ 50] compiling... 52.0% of 25 files
[ 39/ 50] compiling... 56.0% of 25 files
[ 40/ 50] compiling... 60.0% of 25 filesbuilder for `/gnu/store/w9yvw8972xns0j3j36lg4lbyqv5m2f25-guix-cli-core.drv' failed with exit code 1

[ 41/ 50] compiling... 64.0% of 25 files
[ 42/ 50] compiling... 68.0% of 25 filesderivation '/gnu/store/w9yvw8972xns0j3j36lg4lbyqv5m2f25-guix-cli-core.drv' offloaded to '141.80.167.177' failed: build of `/gnu/store/w9yvw8972xns0j3j36lg4lbyqv5m2f25-guix-cli-core.drv' failed

[ 43/ 50] compiling... 72.0% of 25 files
[ 44/ 50] compiling... 76.0% of 25 files
[ 45/ 50] compiling... 80.0% of 25 files
[ 46/ 50] compiling... 84.0% of 25 files
[ 47/ 50] compiling... 88.0% of 25 files
[ 48/ 50] compiling... 92.0% of 25 files
[ 49/ 50] compiling... 96.0% of 25 filescannot build derivation `/gnu/store/9wyflvlskm5s5043zrrivfv3mv58n1vw-guix-cli-core-modules.drv': 1 dependencies couldn't be built
cannot build derivation `/gnu/store/ych1s7kdksq08rzd1m6ddkpp7x8pw56x-guix-cli.drv': 1 dependencies couldn't be built

be more readable.)

The expressions leading to this internal compiler error are:

(bytevector->hash-data (sha256 (string->utf8 s))
#:key-type (key-type public-key))

and:

(bytevector->hash-data sha256
#:key-type (key-type public-key))

This sounds like a compiler bug, possibly related to Guile commit
f95bf6921e13799abca6a0a13087609c42baba6b.

Note that ‘bytevector->hash-data’ comes from Guile-Gcrypt, which was
itself still compiled with 3.0.9. So there’s a possibility that the bug
comes with this particular combination as is exhibited by cross-module
inlining.

To be continued…

Ludo’.
T
T
Thompson, David wrote on 20 Jul 00:07 +0200
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 72183@debbugs.gnu.org)
CAJ=RwfZ9WWpJ6DCPVKR_A_maVsuiWzxuiDFspRwzJK1qp5ULKg@mail.gmail.com
Hey Ludo,

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 4:40?PM Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
Toggle quote (7 lines)
>
> Hey,
>
> I temporarily reverted the commits that upgrade Guile and adjust Hoot in
> 31244f5cefae4c14a1a5d441dc3b3626b5f32abc so we can investigate the issue
> below (which broke ‘guix pull’) without pressure.

Oh no, sorry! I ran 'guix pull' after pushing these commits and didn't
experience issues so I thought all was well. :(

Toggle quote (4 lines)
> Turns out ‘guile-3.0-latest’ is used to build Guix itself (via ‘guix
> pull’, but also the ‘guix’ package) and this cause a failure of
> guix-cli-core.drv:

How about using guile-3.0 for Guix so that future Guile updates can be
done without fear?

Toggle quote (18 lines)
> The expressions leading to this internal compiler error are:
>
> (bytevector->hash-data (sha256 (string->utf8 s))
> #:key-type (key-type public-key))
>
> and:
>
> (bytevector->hash-data sha256
> #:key-type (key-type public-key))
>
> This sounds like a compiler bug, possibly related to Guile commit
> f95bf6921e13799abca6a0a13087609c42baba6b.
>
> Note that ‘bytevector->hash-data’ comes from Guile-Gcrypt, which was
> itself still compiled with 3.0.9. So there’s a possibility that the bug
> comes with this particular combination as is exhibited by cross-module
> inlining.

Yup, that certainly sounds like what is happening here. Cross-module
inlining + the new keyword args optimization.

Sorry for breaking 'guix pull'. I thought I had scoped the changes
down to a safe level. :(

- Dave
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 1 Sep 19:31 +0200
(name . Thompson, David)(address . dthompson2@worcester.edu)(address . 72183@debbugs.gnu.org)
87le0bcmbs.fsf@gnu.org
Hi David,

"Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> skribis:

Toggle quote (11 lines)
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 4:40?PM Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I temporarily reverted the commits that upgrade Guile and adjust Hoot in
>> 31244f5cefae4c14a1a5d441dc3b3626b5f32abc so we can investigate the issue
>> below (which broke ‘guix pull’) without pressure.
>
> Oh no, sorry! I ran 'guix pull' after pushing these commits and didn't
> experience issues so I thought all was well. :(

No worries, I didn’t expect that either.

Toggle quote (7 lines)
>> Turns out ‘guile-3.0-latest’ is used to build Guix itself (via ‘guix
>> pull’, but also the ‘guix’ package) and this cause a failure of
>> guix-cli-core.drv:
>
> How about using guile-3.0 for Guix so that future Guile updates can be
> done without fear?

We can do that, though I like the idea of following Guile closely.

[...]

Toggle quote (8 lines)
>> Note that ‘bytevector->hash-data’ comes from Guile-Gcrypt, which was
>> itself still compiled with 3.0.9. So there’s a possibility that the bug
>> comes with this particular combination as is exhibited by cross-module
>> inlining.
>
> Yup, that certainly sounds like what is happening here. Cross-module
> inlining + the new keyword args optimization.

I came up with a reduced test case and reported it here:


Another problem I had forgotten is that Guile current ‘main’ and 3.0.10
fails to build on 32-bit platforms:


The best course of action might be to release 3.0.11 with bug fixes for
at least these two things. WDYT?

In the meantime, I keep using the Guile channel, which works well for me:

(channel
(name 'guile)
(branch "main"))

Ludo’.
T
T
Thompson, David wrote on 9 Sep 14:24 +0200
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)(address . 72183@debbugs.gnu.org)
CAJ=RwfYQ1FuqQ7nfRPfWw26fOeCzZ5PD6tiWjKJ=6nnhhG1_Sg@mail.gmail.com
Hey Ludo,

On Sun, Sep 1, 2024 at 1:31?PM Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
Toggle quote (27 lines)
>
> Hi David,
>
> "Thompson, David" <dthompson2@worcester.edu> skribis:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 4:40?PM Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey,
> >>
> >> I temporarily reverted the commits that upgrade Guile and adjust Hoot in
> >> 31244f5cefae4c14a1a5d441dc3b3626b5f32abc so we can investigate the issue
> >> below (which broke ‘guix pull’) without pressure.
> >
> > Oh no, sorry! I ran 'guix pull' after pushing these commits and didn't
> > experience issues so I thought all was well. :(
>
> No worries, I didn’t expect that either.
>
> >> Turns out ‘guile-3.0-latest’ is used to build Guix itself (via ‘guix
> >> pull’, but also the ‘guix’ package) and this cause a failure of
> >> guix-cli-core.drv:
> >
> > How about using guile-3.0 for Guix so that future Guile updates can be
> > done without fear?
>
> We can do that, though I like the idea of following Guile closely.

Okay, let's not do this, then. :)

Toggle quote (12 lines)
> >> Note that ‘bytevector->hash-data’ comes from Guile-Gcrypt, which was
> >> itself still compiled with 3.0.9. So there’s a possibility that the bug
> >> comes with this particular combination as is exhibited by cross-module
> >> inlining.
> >
> > Yup, that certainly sounds like what is happening here. Cross-module
> > inlining + the new keyword args optimization.
>
> I came up with a reduced test case and reported it here:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/72936

Awesome, thanks! Forwarded this to Andy.

Toggle quote (8 lines)
> Another problem I had forgotten is that Guile current ‘main’ and 3.0.10
> fails to build on 32-bit platforms:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/72215
>
> The best course of action might be to release 3.0.11 with bug fixes for
> at least these two things. WDYT?

Yes, I think skipping 3.0.10 entirely makes sense. I will update
guile-next at some point, though, since these issues are already
present in the current version of that package.

Toggle quote (7 lines)
> In the meantime, I keep using the Guile channel, which works well for me:
>
> (channel
> (name 'guile)
> (url "https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git")
> (branch "main"))

Oh neat, I didn't realize this was a thing.

Thanks,

- Dave
?
Your comment

Commenting via the web interface is currently disabled.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 72183@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 72183
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