Re: xwayland security updates, to mesa- or core-updates or ?

[Efraim Flashner]

On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 05:13:46AM +0000, John Kehayias wrote:
> Hi Efraim and guix-devel
> 
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 08:44 AM, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 09:19:27AM +0200, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 09:18:50PM +0000, John Kehayias wrote:
> >> > Hi all,
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 12:57 AM, John Kehayias wrote:
> >> >
> [snip]
> >> >
> >> > I haven't seen QA process this branch, so I'm just going with what I
> >> > see on Berlin. From the branches overview it shows about 61% last I
> >> > saw, compared to 72% for master. Unfortunately, non x86 architectures
> >> > are usually better covered by Bordeaux, but I don't know where to get
> >> > a sense of that coverage. For what it is worth, Efraim has manually
> >> > built xorgproto and mesa at least on powerpc64le, riscv64, without
> >> > issues.
> >>
> >> I had berlin build for powerpc64le and that went without any problems.
> >> Locally I built for riscv64 and powerpc and those both built fine.  I
> >> ran into an issue locally with curl on aarch64 and test 1477(?) which is
> >> weird since it's supposed to be skipped but I'm sending it through
> >> again.  Haven't started armhf yet.
> >>
> >> > Coverage on x86_64 and i686 seems good from what I can tell. I also
> >> > don't think there are any other branches ready to merge, and would
> >> > like to give them time to rebuild once these changes hit.
> >> >
> >> > Any thoughts on when to merge?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks everyone!
> >> > John
> >
> 
> Coming back to this point, seems Berlin is doing better with building
> but I don't see mesa-updates on QA so I'm not sure about non
> x86_64/i686-linux coverage. Anyone have any thoughts?
> 
> I don't know that I've seen real new failures, as still lots of
> "missing derivation" or other transient issues that resolve on forcing
> a rebuild.
> 
> I don't want to merge to master and have issues with substitute
> coverage, but do have to call it at some point or will end up keep
> scheduling/waiting for rebuilds to happen anyway.
> 
> Thoughts?

I've been massaging the aarch64 builds to try to build out to rust,
currently I'm still around cmake.  Last time we relied on bayfront for
substitutes, which I'd be okay with again, as long as we can tell that
it's doing alright.

> > I've been having trouble with curl on aarch64 again. Looking at this
> > snippet from the build log:
> >
> > test 1477...[Verify that error codes in headers and libcurl-errors.3 are in 
> > sync]
> >
> >  1477: stdout FAILED:
> > --- log/1/check-expected        2023-12-22 10:53:51.658667071 +0000
> > +++ log/1/check-generated       2023-12-22 10:53:51.658667071 +0000
> > @@ -1 +0,0 @@
> > -Result[LF]
> >
> >  - abort tests
> > test 1475...[-f and 416 with Content-Range: */size]
> > --pd---e--- OK (1247 out of 1472, remaining: 00:45, took 5.310s, duration: 
> > 04:11)
> > test 1474...[HTTP PUT with Expect: 100-continue and 417 response during 
> > upload]
> > --pd---e--- OK (1246 out of 1472, remaining: 00:48, took 22.794s, duration: 
> > 04:29)
> > Warning: test1474 result is ignored, but passed!
> > ...
> > TESTFAIL: These test cases failed: 1477
> >
> > It looks like 1474 is passing locally and the ~1474 is telling the test
> > suite to ignore the result.  If that's how ~<number> is interpreted then
> > I'd suggest that 1477 is failing hard enough that it's taking the test
> > suite with it, not merely ignoring the result.  I'll continue poking it
> > but right now I'm starting to like the hurd plan of disabling the test
> > instead of merely ignoring the result.
> 
> Thanks for looking at this Efraim. Looks like a good chunk of the curl
> rebuilds did get through, did it look okay on aarch64 and anywhere
> else you checked?

Looks like I got it working on whichever systems I tested it on and I
today saw it build correctly on Berlin.

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

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature