guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] build: pull: Compile .scm files in one process.


From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: [PATCH] build: pull: Compile .scm files in one process.
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 11:07:35 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:

> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

[...]

>>    ?: 2 [primitive-load 
>> "/gnu/store/d51z2xkwp1vh0dh6gqadyyzv21m0b772-guix-latest/guix/scripts/import/hackage.scm"]
>> In ice-9/eval.scm:
>>  453: 1 Exception thrown while printing backtrace:
>> ERROR: In procedure package-location: Wrong type argument: Error while 
>> printing exception.
>>
>> ice-9/eval.scm:387:11: In procedure eval:
>> ice-9/eval.scm:387:11: In procedure package-version: Wrong type argument: 
>> Error while printing exception.
>> builder for `/gnu/store/pc1i5s6vx9yx97prhskx178gj5swxw4k-guix-latest.drv' 
>> failed with exit code 1
>> guix pull: error: build failed: build of 
>> `/gnu/store/pc1i5s6vx9yx97prhskx178gj5swxw4k-guix-latest.drv' failed
>>
>> Any idea?
>>
>> To me it sounds like there are two <package> record type descriptors in
>> the wild, which is why ‘package-location’ in the package record printer
>> bails out.
>
> That's one of the errors that result from a "bad" order of compiling the
> files and when the 'load' hack isn't used to work around it, which isn't
> the case in that patch...  Indeed I can't seem to reproduce the issue.
>
> The attached patch below also builds on the quoted patch, removes the
> thread-safe-port procedure, and just sets the warning port to a void
> port.  Applied on top of the current master, it works for me.

On top of current master, it fails for me in the same way as above.

To be clear, I applied the patch, ran ‘make dist’, and then:

  time ./pre-inst-env guix pull --url=file://$PWD/guix-0.9.0.tar.gz

Are you doing the same?  The “loading” part is done sequentially, so it
should be deterministic.

> Thanks for picking this up and sorry that I couldn't finish it. :-)

No problem, we’re getting there!  :-)

Ludo’.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]