GNU bug report logs - #38455
[PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 38455 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 38455 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix pull breakage.
Date: Mon,  2 Dec 2019 10:15:50 +0100

* doc/contributing.texi (Submitting Patches): Mention commands in the check
  list.
---
 doc/contributing.texi | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index ee72b2f94d..04a4ba3e1a 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -961,6 +961,16 @@ often better to clone the repository.  Don't use the @command{name} field in
 the URL: it is not very useful and if the name changes, the URL will probably
 be wrong.
 
+@item
+Make sure your changes do not break Guix: rebuild it with
+@example
+guix environment guix -- make
+@end example
+and simulate a @code{guix pull} with
+@example
+guix pull --url=/path/to/your/checkout --dry-run
+@end example
+
 @end enumerate
 
 When posting a patch to the mailing list, use @samp{[PATCH] @dots{}} as
-- 
2.23.0

Message #8 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:08:07 +0100

Hi Pierre,

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 10:16, Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> * doc/contributing.texi (Submitting Patches): Mention commands in the check
>   list.

Nice!

I propose instead this wording. Because, I am not sure that building
Guix from source is really necessary to run/check "guix pull".


--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index ee72b2f94d..8001b0aef1 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -961,6 +961,15 @@ often better to clone the repository.  Don't use
the @command{name} field in
 the URL: it is not very useful and if the name changes, the URL will probably
 be wrong.

+@item
+Make sure your changes do not break @command{guix pull}:
+
+@example
+guix pull --dry-run --url=/path/to/your/checkout
+@end example
+
+(see @pxref{Invoking guix pull}).
+
 @end enumerate

 When posting a patch to the mailing list, use @samp{[PATCH] @dots{}} as
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


Hope that helps.

Cheers,
simon

Message #11 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 13:16:48 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I'm actually not sure about one thing: Does `guix pull` catch the errors
of `make`?
I believe that make can output useful warnings, which maybe not bother
`guix pull`, but maybe I'm wrong.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #14 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:32:50 +0100

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 13:16, Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
>
> I'm actually not sure about one thing: Does `guix pull` catch the errors
> of `make`?

What is the point of this advice? Check if "guix pull" is broken,
right? I think "guix pull -n --url=foo" does the job, isn't it?

> I believe that make can output useful warnings, which maybe not bother
> `guix pull`, but maybe I'm wrong.

This is another tips? Reading all the points, I feel that another
point about checking the "make" warnings and/or running the test suite
should be added. A good indication is that there is no link to
"Running the Test Suite".

What do you think?

Message #17 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel <at> gnu.org, 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 13:46:08 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 13:16, Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
>>
>> I'm actually not sure about one thing: Does `guix pull` catch the errors
>> of `make`?
>
> What is the point of this advice? Check if "guix pull" is broken,
> right? I think "guix pull -n --url=foo" does the job, isn't it?
>
>> I believe that make can output useful warnings, which maybe not bother
>> `guix pull`, but maybe I'm wrong.
>
> This is another tips? Reading all the points, I feel that another
> point about checking the "make" warnings and/or running the test suite
> should be added.

Why not.

> A good indication is that there is no link to
> "Running the Test Suite".
>
> What do you think?

CC-ing guix-devel.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:48:41 +0100

I do not find any test about "guix pull" in the test suite. I was
expecting e.g., "guix-pull.sh" or "pull.scm". Do I misread something?

Message #23 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: Guix Devel <guix-devel <at> gnu.org>, 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:52:42 +0100

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 13:46, Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> CC-ing guix-devel.

If guix-devel is CC-ed, then let talk about the tests of "guix pull"
in the test suite. :-)

I do not find any test about "guix pull" in the test suite. I was
expecting e.g., "guix-pull.sh" or "pull.scm". Do I misread something?

Message #26 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make /
 guix pull breakage.
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 20:31:57 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Pierre,

good idea, but I use

$ guix environment --pure guix --ad-hoc git guile-readline guile-json

(Not using "--pure" is asking for trouble in my opinion)

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #29 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 21:14:34 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Indeed.
Why would you need the ad-hoc part though?

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #32 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make /
 guix pull breakage.
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 22:48:41 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 21:14:34 +0100
Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> Why would you need the ad-hoc part though?

I've added it because it didn't work without.

I *think* is was because there was a time where guile-json
was not a dependency of guix-the-package but it became
one of the guix git checkout, making the build of the guix
git checkout in a guix environment fail.
I really can't remember, though.

Some parts of the Guix build use git--can't remember which.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #35 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 11:34:42 +0100

Hi Danny,

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 20:33, Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org> wrote:


> good idea, but I use
>
> $ guix environment --pure guix --ad-hoc git guile-readline guile-json

I think that it is described here [1]

[1] https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/guix.html#Building-from-Git


From my point of view, the change should only concern how to test
"guix pull" by adding a bullet -- with a link to Building from Git and
 Running Test Suite.


> (Not using "--pure" is asking for trouble in my opinion)

I agree that --pure should be always added to avoid troubles.
Maybe it should be the default of "guix environment"?


Cheers,
simon

Message #38 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 11:39:09 +0100

Hi Danny,


On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 at 22:59, Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 21:14:34 +0100
> Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
>
> > Why would you need the ad-hoc part though?
>
> I've added it because it didn't work without.

Recently?


> I *think* is was because there was a time where guile-json
> was not a dependency of guix-the-package but it became
> one of the guix git checkout, making the build of the guix
> git checkout in a guix environment fail.
> I really can't remember, though.

I remember as well something like that. But now, it is fixed: "guix
environment guix --pure" does the correct job, I guess.


> Some parts of the Guix build use git--can't remember which.

I do not think so.
But having Git in the environment is really helpful (switch branch,
revert, log, etc.)


Cheers,
simon

Message #41 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>,
 Danny Milosavljevic <dannym <at> scratchpost.org>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2019 16:42:18 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I've added two points as discussed here: `make` and `guix pull`.

Commits bf99d7e0e2e79935b6748afa059e7392d8e110c8 and
9fcf28205826564a05cfccba301ac3b09d17e86d.

I agree with Simon that a "guix pull" test would be nice.  I've opened
another issue for it.  See "Add test for `guix pull'".

Same with --pure being the default.  Opening another issue "Make --pure
the default for `guix environment'?".

Closing.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #46 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 16:55:40 +0100

Hi Pierre,

On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 at 16:42, Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> Commits bf99d7e0e2e79935b6748afa059e7392d8e110c8 and

This commit is incorrect. Because it implies that ./configure has been
run before.

The correct advice -- which is obvious to me -- is: please check if
Guix builds and address the warnings.


All the best,
simon

Message #49 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:32:21 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Acknowledged.
Fixed in da31e7d9ec11081807c6710f0f86def2372a7aff.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #52 received at 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 38455 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38455] [PATCH] doc: Mention how to test against make / guix
 pull breakage.
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 13:32:34 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

And thanks for the catch!

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.