GNU bug report logs - #66537
configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing

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 66537 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 66537 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: Hiep Pham <hiepph9 <at> proton.me>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2023 12:49:28 +0000

Hi,

I'm on Fedora and started a shell with:

```
guix shell -D guix help2man git strace --pure
```

And then:

```
./bootstrap
./configure --localstatedir=/var
```

And it showed me this error:

```
[snip]
checking for guile-3.0 >= 3.0.3... yes
checking for guile-3.0... yes
checking if (gnutls) is available... no
configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing; please 
install them.
```

I started the shell again with some dependencies but no luck :(

```
guix shell -D guix git strace guile-gnutls gnutls --pure
```

My current (guix describe):

```
   guix 8e8d20b
     repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git
     branch: master
     commit: 8e8d20b6b35d3ab529f9045cc8a779cdcec9c471
```

-- 
Hiep

Message #8 received at 66537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daniel Meißner <daniel.meissner-i4k <at> rub.de>
To: Hiep Pham <hiepph9 <at> proton.me>
Cc: 66537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#66537: configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are
 missing
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 10:59:57 +0200

Hi Hiep,

> Hi,
>
> I'm on Fedora and started a shell with:
>
> ```
> guix shell -D guix help2man git strace --pure
> ```
>
> And then:
>
> ```
> ./bootstrap
> ./configure --localstatedir=/var
> ```
>
> And it showed me this error:
>
> ```
> [snip]
> checking for guile-3.0 >= 3.0.3... yes
> checking for guile-3.0... yes
> checking if (gnutls) is available... no
> configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing; please 
> install them.
> ```

Have you installed Guile 3.0 via Fedora’s package manager also?  Then
maybe configure finds Fedora’s Guile where Guile-GnuTLS is not
installed.  You could try using a container to confirm:

guix shell -C -D guix help2man git strace

Then try again:

./bootstrap
./configure --localstatedir=/var

When this works configure is probably finding the wrong Guile binary.
Alternatively look into the file config.status which is generated by
configure for a line like

S["GUILE"]="/path/to/guile"

This shows which Guile binary is found.

-- 
Best,
Daniel

Message #11 received at 66537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Hiep Pham <hiepph9 <at> proton.me>
To: Daniel Meißner <daniel.meissner-i4k <at> rub.de>
Cc: 66537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#66537: configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are
 missing
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 10:28:09 +0000

Hi Daniel,

On 10/17/23 10:59, Daniel Meißner wrote:
> Hi Hiep,
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm on Fedora and started a shell with:
>>
>> ```
>> guix shell -D guix help2man git strace --pure
>> ```
>>
>> And then:
>>
>> ```
>> ./bootstrap
>> ./configure --localstatedir=/var
>> ```
>>
>> And it showed me this error:
>>
>> ```
>> [snip]
>> checking for guile-3.0 >= 3.0.3... yes
>> checking for guile-3.0... yes
>> checking if (gnutls) is available... no
>> configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are missing; please
>> install them.
>> ```
> 
> Have you installed Guile 3.0 via Fedora’s package manager also?  Then
> maybe configure finds Fedora’s Guile where Guile-GnuTLS is not
> installed.  You could try using a container to confirm:
> 
> guix shell -C -D guix help2man git strace
> 
> Then try again:
> 
> ./bootstrap
> ./configure --localstatedir=/var

Running `guix shell -C -D guix help2man git strace --pure` in a 
container solved my problem! Thanks.

> When this works configure is probably finding the wrong Guile binary.
> Alternatively look into the file config.status which is generated by
> configure for a line like
> 
> S["GUILE"]="/path/to/guile"
> 
> This shows which Guile binary is found.

I followed this contributing guide [1] in the manual. It might be 
helpful to update the documentation to run the shell in an isolated 
container.

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

-- 
Hiep

Message #14 received at 66537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: 66537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 Hiep Pham <hiepph9 <at> proton.me>
Subject: [PATCH] doc: Recommend building in ‘guix shell -CPW’.
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 13:05:30 +0100

This was prompted by <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/66537>, where someone
tried to build Guix within ‘guix shell --pure’ on a foreign distro and
found that ./configure would pick software from the host system.

Suggested by Hiep Pham <hiepph9 <at> proton.me>.

* doc/contributing.texi (Building from Git): Recommend ‘guix shell -CPW’.

Change-Id: I7694b482d982917fef6ec404f68ddacea761f482
---
 doc/contributing.texi | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index f3cc4d7af7..da72eae067 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -76,15 +76,17 @@ Building from Git
 hack on Guix:
 
 @example
-guix shell -D guix --pure
+guix shell -D guix -CPW
 @end example
 
 or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix:
 
 @example
-guix shell --pure
+guix shell -CPW
 @end example
 
+If @option{-C} (short for @option{--container}) is not supported on your
+system, try @command{--pure} instead of @option{-CPW}.
 @xref{Invoking guix shell}, for more information on that command.
 
 If you are unable to use Guix when building Guix from a checkout, the

base-commit: d987b75618a62c95c030e7ca53e0972e700c4f06
-- 
2.41.0

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

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: 66537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 Hiep Pham <hiepph9 <at> proton.me>
Subject: Re: bug#66537: [PATCH] doc: Recommend building in
 ‘guix shell -CPW’.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2023 20:33:55 +0100

Hi,

On mer., 22 nov. 2023 at 13:05, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:

>  @example
> -guix shell -D guix --pure
> +guix shell -D guix -CPW
>  @end example
>  
>  or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix:
>  
>  @example
> -guix shell --pure
> +guix shell -CPW
>  @end example

I would not recommend that or adding also the option -N.  Else, the
development experience can be annoying.

For instance, “make check” will probably fail because some substitutes
are missing (see #67532 [1], e.g., tests/derivations.scm).

Moreover, one needs to go out the shell for submitting with “git
send-email” but then git:send-email is not necessary available in PATH.

1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/67532


Cheers,
simon

Message #25 received at 66537-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: 67366-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: 66537-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Hiep Pham <hiepph9 <at> proton.me>
Subject: Re: [bug#67366] [PATCH] doc: Recommend building in
 ‘guix shell -CPW’.
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2023 22:51:51 +0100

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> skribis:

> This was prompted by <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/66537>, where someone
> tried to build Guix within ‘guix shell --pure’ on a foreign distro and
> found that ./configure would pick software from the host system.
>
> Suggested by Hiep Pham <hiepph9 <at> proton.me>.
>
> * doc/contributing.texi (Building from Git): Recommend ‘guix shell -CPW’.
>
> Change-Id: I7694b482d982917fef6ec404f68ddacea761f482

Pushed as 01361d46b8e0481ad56665d7a06c276b08f59c6d.

Ludo'.

Message #28 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 66537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Hiep Pham <hiepph9 <at> proton.me>, guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#66537: configure: error: The Guile bindings of GnuTLS are
 missing
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:50:09 +0100

Hi Ludo,

On Wed, 29 Nov 2023 at 20:33, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On mer., 22 nov. 2023 at 13:05, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>>  @example
>> -guix shell -D guix --pure
>> +guix shell -D guix -CPW
>>  @end example
>>
>>  or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix:
>>
>>  @example
>> -guix shell --pure
>> +guix shell -CPW
>>  @end example
>
> I would not recommend that or adding also the option -N.  Else, the
> development experience can be annoying.

As said, I disagree with this change pushed by
01361d46b8e0481ad56665d7a06c276b08f59c6d.

Could you revert?  Because as explained by…

> For instance, “make check” will probably fail because some substitutes
> are missing (see #67532 [1], e.g., tests/derivations.scm).

…the option ’-CPW’ is not a solution.  Other said, it would require in
addition ’-N’.

To me, this recommendation of container is like a bazooka for chasing
the real bug: about why --pure does not clean all as expected.  Or why
“guile” is found elsewhere?

Cheers,
simon

Message #34 received at 66537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 66537 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, guix-patches <at> gnu.org, Hiep Pham <hiepph9 <at> proton.me>
Subject: Re: bug#66537: [PATCH] doc: Recommend building in
 ‘guix shell -CPW’.
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 10:30:32 +0100

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

Hi,

On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 at 16:50, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> wrote:

>>>  @example
>>> -guix shell --pure
>>> +guix shell -CPW
>>>  @end example
>>
>> I would not recommend that or adding also the option -N.  Else, the
>> development experience can be annoying.
>
> As said, I disagree with this change pushed by
> 01361d46b8e0481ad56665d7a06c276b08f59c6d.
>
> Could you revert?  Because as explained by…
>
>> For instance, “make check” will probably fail because some substitutes
>> are missing (see #67532 [1], e.g., tests/derivations.scm).
>
> …the option ’-CPW’ is not a solution.  Other said, it would require in
> addition ’-N’.

Ludo’s answer from bug#67532 [1]:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
I had come to forget about that because for the ‘guix’ package
(obviously built in a network-less environment), we “pre-seed” the store
with the 4 or 5 files needed to run the test suite.

So I propose:
[ text/x-patch ]
diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index 0833b5d32c..0072e5d42d 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -76,13 +76,13 @@ Building from Git
 hack on Guix:

 @example
-guix shell -D guix -CPW
+guix shell -D guix -CPWN
 @end example

 or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix:

 @example
-guix shell -CPW
+guix shell -CPWN
 @end example

 If @option{-C} (short for @option{--container}) is not supported on your
[ text/plain ]

(And not going back to ‘--pure’ because as we know it depends too much
of the goodwill of the user’s shell.)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Well, IMHO it falls into…

> To me, this recommendation of container is like a bazooka for chasing
> the real bug: about why --pure does not clean all as expected.  Or why
> “guile” is found elsewhere?

…a bazooka for killing a fly.  For instance, in the two message of the
initial bug report, I do not see the output of the current
recommendation: run “guix shell --check”.

Yes, “guix shell” depends on the goodwill of the user’s shell but
recommending first --pure is an opportunity for improving --check and/or
--pure itself, IMHO.

Considering this reported instance of issue, it is not clear for me that
--check would not have reported the problem.  Or why --pure does not
correctly clean all the environment variables?  Or why ./configure set
something system wide?

For me, these questions are the bug.  And -CPWN is just a temporary
workaround avoiding the bug and not a fix.

Somehow, if the use of “-CPWN” instead of “--pure“ is not an idea that
user has when hitting a failure with “guix shell --pure”, yeah maybe it
could be helpful to recommend it in addition.  And not the contrary. :-)
Something like:

[p.patch (text/x-diff, inline)]

diff --git a/doc/contributing.texi b/doc/contributing.texi
index 7337f4bd58..8f66b3642b 100644
--- a/doc/contributing.texi
+++ b/doc/contributing.texi
@@ -76,18 +76,19 @@ Building from Git
 hack on Guix:
 
 @example
-guix shell -D guix -CPW
+guix shell -D guix --pure
 @end example
 
 or even, from within a Git worktree for Guix:
 
 @example
-guix shell -CPW
+guix shell --pure
 @end example
 
-If @option{-C} (short for @option{--container}) is not supported on your
-system, try @command{--pure} instead of @option{-CPW}.
-@xref{Invoking guix shell}, for more information on that command.
+If building Guix fails, please check the environment variables using the
+option @command{--check}.  In the last resort, try @option{-CPWN}
+instead of @command{--pure}.  @xref{Invoking guix shell}, for more
+information on that command.
 
 If you are unable to use Guix when building Guix from a checkout, the
 following are the required packages in addition to those mentioned in the

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

That’s said, going your road, I would suggest to add option, say
-A/no-long-name doing all (-CPWN) at once.

Cheers,
simon


1: bug#67532: “make check” requires network
Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Mon, 11 Dec 2023 22:42:30 +0100
id:87sf482z7d.fsf <at> gnu.org
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/67532
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/87sf482z7d.fsf <at> gnu.org
https://yhetil.org/guix/87sf482z7d.fsf <at> gnu.org

Previous Next

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