GNU logs - #76850, boring messages

Message sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#76850: tests/pack.scm failure (AppImage)
Resent-From: Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 03:47:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.76850.B.17414055959637 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:45:22 -0600
Message-ID: <87v7sk5god.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
 micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2605:6400:20:11e::1;
 envelope-from=reepca@HIDDEN; helo=mailout.russelstein.xyz
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: (-0.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD=0.001, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD_FP=0.001,
 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.976, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 Content preview: Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is
 nondeterministic.
 This is because it currently succeeds more or less by accident: the AppRun
 symlink points to ./gnu/store/...-profile/bin/hello, [...] 
 Content analysis details:   (2.9 points, 10.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 0.9 SPF_FAIL               SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
 [SPF failed: Please see http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;
 id=reepca%40russelstein.xyz; ip=2001%3A470%3A142%3A%3A17; r=debbugs.gnu.org]
 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD      Untrustworthy TLDs
 [URI: russelstein.xyz (xyz)]
 -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 no trust [2001:470:142:0:0:0:0:17 listed in] [list.dnswl.org]
 0.0 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD   From abused NTLD
 0.0 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD_FP From abused NTLD
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 1.9 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is nondeterministic.
    This is because it currently succeeds more or less by accident: the AppRun
    symlink points to ./gnu/store/...-profile/bin/hello, [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.9 points, 10.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
                              no trust
                             [2001:470:142:0:0:0:0:17 listed in]
                             [list.dnswl.org]
  0.9 SPF_FAIL               SPF: sender does not match SPF record (fail)
 [SPF failed: Please see http://www.openspf.org/Why?s=mfrom;id=reepca%40russelstein.xyz;ip=2001%3A470%3A142%3A%3A17;r=debbugs.gnu.org]
  2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD      Untrustworthy TLDs
                             [URI: russelstein.xyz (xyz)]
 -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
  0.0 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD   From abused NTLD
 -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI     Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
                             manager

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain

Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is nondeterministic.
This is because it currently succeeds more or less by accident: the
AppRun symlink points to ./gnu/store/...-profile/bin/hello, which points
to /gnu/store/...-hello-2.12.1/bin/hello (note: absolute path!).  There
shouldn't be any reason for that to exist inside the chroot, except that
the daemon's reference scanner has noticed that some of the inputs to
the appimage-building derivation *may* have their hashes visible in the
built appimage.  I say "may" because the appimage is compressed with
squashfs, so it's a matter of luck whether a hash is actually directly
visible.  Currently, in the master branch, it happens to be visible, but
in my local repository it isn't, and so it fails for me.

To demonstrate this without relying on the fickle compression, find the
store path of the appimage built during the tests/pack.scm "appimage"
test case after running "make check TESTS=tests/pack.scm" (the
"check-appimage" derivation is printed into tests/pack.log, from there
you can find the appimage derivation and its output path), and call it
$IMAGE.  Then:

$ IMAGE=/gnu/store/2c8m9in2pkgkf8p9qgv17dqz19jfxmmm-hello-appimage.AppImage
$ mkdir test-root
$ mkdir test-root/proc
$ mkdir test-root/tmp
$ cp "$IMAGE" test-root/test-image
$ unshare --user --mount --map-root-user

then, in the subshell spawned by unshare:

$ mount --bind /proc test-root/proc
$ chroot ./test-root /test-image --appimage-extract-and-run

you should see "Failed to run
/tmp/appimage_extracted_e331827d4eb2f579cccf6fb79143c261/AppRun: No such
file or directory" or something like it.

- reepca

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFLBAEBCAA1FiEEdNapMPRLm4SepVYGwWaqSV9/GJwFAmfLvVMXHHJlZXBjYUBy
dXNzZWxzdGVpbi54eXoACgkQwWaqSV9/GJwm5wf9HT4HQ90TjsGF5VaOn4zZsMxK
cISgL2HKpUXeaBknMsx8v6KUrb9r45h9As2f5NYV8otX1U14H6HjccfJoNOaGHeC
vWPRUkM/aBhikEcJuN+YcN2J6mgQ8e+ZUYX//sDtNQevuBHmxbTTj0Sf3yR4+JGa
fL77ap8UK77CBKtIZkzV5B48lw4u9gWVv6yQeGmdenqTzGq8z9dtXU94mqE7pURR
lNza+ZS52peqzAoePIH4Kq3LwmOf7GvP7Tt+p+RVEd9JmLUS3/KDZVJ/RD9A3Q/c
nD1S81n/vYr8FzYNWrOcH73ti22J7ynIhbOd65M+Cxe+GAe6Dvg2VRxjGiNBeQ==
=vJM5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#76850: Acknowledgement (tests/pack.scm failure (AppImage))
Message-ID: <handler.76850.B.17414055959637.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <87v7sk5god.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 76850
X-Gnu-PR-Package: guix
Reply-To: 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 03:47:02 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-guix@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
76850: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D76850
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#76850: tests/pack.scm failure (AppImage)
Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 19:49:04 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.76850.B76850.174224089415641 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noe@HIDDEN>, 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <87v7sk5god.fsf@HIDDEN> (Reepca Russelstein's message of
 "Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:45:22 -0600")
References: <87v7sk5god.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:48:01 +0100
Message-ID: <87tt7rl9qm.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
 Content preview:  Hello, Thanks for the bug report, Reepca. =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9,?= could you
   take a look? 
 
 Content analysis details:   (2.4 points, 10.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The
                             query to Validity was blocked.  See
                             https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243
                              for more information.
                             [185.233.100.1 listed in bl.score.senderscore.com]
  0.0 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE:
                             The query to Validity was blocked.  See
                             https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243
                              for more information.
                             [185.233.100.1 listed in sa-accredit.habeas.com]
  1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL           SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail)
 -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
  1.5 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD      Untrustworthy TLDs
                             [URI: russelstein.xyz (xyz)]
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Hello, Thanks for the bug report, Reepca. =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9,?= could you
   take a look? 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.4 points, 10.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE:
                             The query to Validity was blocked.  See
                             https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243
                              for more information.
                          [185.233.100.1 listed in sa-trusted.bondedsender.org]
  0.0 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The
                             query to Validity was blocked.  See
                             https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243
                              for more information.
                             [185.233.100.1 listed in bl.score.senderscore.com]
  1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL           SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail)
 -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
  1.5 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD      Untrustworthy TLDs
                             [URI: russelstein.xyz (xyz)]
 -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI     Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
                             manager

Hello,

Thanks for the bug report, Reepca.

No=C3=A9, could you take a look?

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.

Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN> skribis:

> Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is nondeterministic.
> This is because it currently succeeds more or less by accident: the
> AppRun symlink points to ./gnu/store/...-profile/bin/hello, which points
> to /gnu/store/...-hello-2.12.1/bin/hello (note: absolute path!).  There
> shouldn't be any reason for that to exist inside the chroot, except that
> the daemon's reference scanner has noticed that some of the inputs to
> the appimage-building derivation *may* have their hashes visible in the
> built appimage.  I say "may" because the appimage is compressed with
> squashfs, so it's a matter of luck whether a hash is actually directly
> visible.  Currently, in the master branch, it happens to be visible, but
> in my local repository it isn't, and so it fails for me.
>
> To demonstrate this without relying on the fickle compression, find the
> store path of the appimage built during the tests/pack.scm "appimage"
> test case after running "make check TESTS=3Dtests/pack.scm" (the
> "check-appimage" derivation is printed into tests/pack.log, from there
> you can find the appimage derivation and its output path), and call it
> $IMAGE.  Then:
>
> $ IMAGE=3D/gnu/store/2c8m9in2pkgkf8p9qgv17dqz19jfxmmm-hello-appimage.AppI=
mage
> $ mkdir test-root
> $ mkdir test-root/proc
> $ mkdir test-root/tmp
> $ cp "$IMAGE" test-root/test-image
> $ unshare --user --mount --map-root-user
>
> then, in the subshell spawned by unshare:
>
> $ mount --bind /proc test-root/proc
> $ chroot ./test-root /test-image --appimage-extract-and-run
>
> you should see "Failed to run
> /tmp/appimage_extracted_e331827d4eb2f579cccf6fb79143c261/AppRun: No such
> file or directory" or something like it.
>
> - reepca

Message sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#76850: tests/pack.scm failure (AppImage)
References: <87v7sk5god.fsf@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <87v7sk5god.fsf@HIDDEN>
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noe@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2025 22:30:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.76850.B76850.174389217731952 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>, Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN>
Cc: 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noe@HIDDEN>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 00:29:17 +0200
Message-ID: <87r026xmwy.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
 micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@HIDDEN> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Thanks for the bug report, Reepca.
>
> No=C3=A9, could you take a look?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo=E2=80=99.
>

Hi Reepca and Ludo,

Thanks for sending this to me Ludo.

This bug report is very well detailed, thank you.

> Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN> skribis:
>
>> Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is nondeterministic.
>> This is because it currently succeeds more or less by accident: the
>> AppRun symlink points to ./gnu/store/...-profile/bin/hello, which points
>> to /gnu/store/...-hello-2.12.1/bin/hello (note: absolute path!).  There
>> shouldn't be any reason for that to exist inside the chroot, except that
>> the daemon's reference scanner has noticed that some of the inputs to
>> the appimage-building derivation *may* have their hashes visible in the
>> built appimage.  I say "may" because the appimage is compressed with
>> squashfs, so it's a matter of luck whether a hash is actually directly
>> visible.  Currently, in the master branch, it happens to be visible, but
>> in my local repository it isn't, and so it fails for me.

So you=E2=80=99re saying that the daemon is scanning through the files to f=
ind
references to add?  As we see here that is unreliable, do you know what
is the reasoning for this?

Indeed, there are no reasons for that absolute path to exist, since we
have not yet entered the AppImage=E2=80=99s chroot/usermount.  This is a
weakness in our current AppImage design, the contents are always
designed to be ran with a store in /gnu/store but this is handled only
by the AppImage runtime (without --appimage-extract).
=2D-appimage-extract bypasses this and we then rely on the --relocatable
binaries, but ideally there would be no need for relocatable.

This is where our issue lies: in our tests we use #:relocatable? on the
self-contained-appimage function but the profile we give it has not
been made relocatably.

>>
>> To demonstrate this without relying on the fickle compression, find the
>> store path of the appimage built during the tests/pack.scm "appimage"
>> test case after running "make check TESTS=3Dtests/pack.scm" (the
>> "check-appimage" derivation is printed into tests/pack.log, from there
>> you can find the appimage derivation and its output path), and call it
>> $IMAGE.  Then:
>>
>> $ IMAGE=3D/gnu/store/2c8m9in2pkgkf8p9qgv17dqz19jfxmmm-hello-appimage.App=
Image
>> $ mkdir test-root
>> $ mkdir test-root/proc
>> $ mkdir test-root/tmp
>> $ cp "$IMAGE" test-root/test-image
>> $ unshare --user --mount --map-root-user
>>
>> then, in the subshell spawned by unshare:
>>
>> $ mount --bind /proc test-root/proc
>> $ chroot ./test-root /test-image --appimage-extract-and-run
>>
>> you should see "Failed to run
>> /tmp/appimage_extracted_e331827d4eb2f579cccf6fb79143c261/AppRun: No such
>> file or directory" or something like it.
>>
>> - reepca

I=E2=80=99m sending a patch with the updated tests.  Sorry for the long wai=
t!

Have a nice day,
No=C3=A9

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=Ij4g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--

Message sent to guix@HIDDEN, dev@HIDDEN, ludo@HIDDEN, othacehe@HIDDEN, zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN, me@HIDDEN, bug-guix@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#76850: [PATCH] tests: pack: Fix nondeterministic AppImage tests.
References: <87v7sk5god.fsf@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <87v7sk5god.fsf@HIDDEN>
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noelopez@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: guix@HIDDEN, dev@HIDDEN, ludo@HIDDEN, othacehe@HIDDEN, zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN, me@HIDDEN, bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2025 22:33:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.76850.B76850.174389233832723 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 76850
X-GNU-PR-Package: guix
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noelopez@HIDDEN>, Christopher Baines <guix@HIDDEN>, Josselin Poiret <dev@HIDDEN>, Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@HIDDEN>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@HIDDEN>
X-Debbugs-Original-Xcc: Christopher Baines <guix@HIDDEN>, Josselin Poiret <dev@HIDDEN>, Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@HIDDEN>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@HIDDEN>
Received: via spool by 76850-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B76850.174389233832723
          (code B ref 76850); Sat, 05 Apr 2025 22:33:02 +0000
Received: (at 76850) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2025 22:32:18 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45219 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1u1C3l-0008Vj-U4
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2025 18:32:18 -0400
Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.1]:30048)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <noelopez@HIDDEN>) id 1u1C3i-0008VW-KP
 for 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2025 18:32:15 -0400
Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e0a:990:a960:b4f3:8f44:ec4:5af5])
 (Authenticated sender: noelopez@HIDDEN)
 by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C1EA3B0054E;
 Sun,  6 Apr 2025 00:32:09 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=free.fr;
 s=smtp-20201208; t=1743892330;
 bh=2cN+zBF9BCjTth5s5Zjhm37E4p/wWT5Uh/vsJF/qIJk=;
 h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From;
 b=J3DmFUil8FjihsiBoPom2kNt2pTNZJBLo2Jwi54YNqCPnRctTgMiM9cq+T4Ok5Jkx
 wo6/mv6qdxIgeGnyExVNDUk1f6lEV39M4hzxJW+CLgEw7iowPZwzi9DO+eYIJPDt0Z
 MNGM2D/Narg76wDcPHvmITyVBS1PXBhV+A0m+mJkOs00197G66P4qRNQ3VwrwxE9jc
 +BJoRn8E8aMvgRcU9DjwxU/TONPZO1JGv3g6cWWrFNJBImD3deBSuGu7b+OkzUsg6R
 T2deD8U1XSstLo0hoWp1PrmVfdVKQLbbHhjvER3aMRWVX+BNGcC+2diH9NWf/8N2O/
 JZskrBsgQ4ycw==
From: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noelopez@HIDDEN>
Date: Sun,  6 Apr 2025 00:31:47 +0200
Message-ID: <187fec823285b71c80fff33a86227554575289f7.1743892064.git.noelopez@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-)

As reported in #76850, the tested AppImages were not actually relocatable and
would rely on items being available on the environment’s store (apart from
glibc).

* guix/scripts/pack.scm (wrapped-manifest): New function.
(guix-pack): Extract relocatable manifest to wrapped-manifest.
* tests/pack.scm: Use relocatable profiles in AppImage tests.

Change-Id: Ib3123054913fce903d215dc0629d806e9fceebc7
---
 guix/scripts/pack.scm | 11 ++++++++---
 tests/pack.scm        |  8 ++++++--
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/guix/scripts/pack.scm b/guix/scripts/pack.scm
index 7ab2c0d447..c0b7216921 100644
--- a/guix/scripts/pack.scm
+++ b/guix/scripts/pack.scm
@@ -1406,6 +1406,13 @@ (define (wrapped-manifest-entry entry . args)
                          (apply wrapped-manifest-entry entry args))
                        (manifest-entry-dependencies entry)))))
 
+(define*-public (wrapped-manifest manifest #:rest args)
+  "Return the MANIFEST with its entries wrapped such that they are
+relocatable. Extra arguments are passed to wrapped-package."
+  (map-manifest-entries
+   (lambda (entry) (apply wrapped-manifest-entry entry args))
+   manifest))
+
 
 ;;;
 ;;; Command-line options.
@@ -1801,9 +1808,7 @@ (define-command (guix-pack . args)
                                   ;; Note: We cannot honor '--bootstrap' here because
                                   ;; 'glibc-bootstrap' lacks 'libc.a'.
                                   (if relocatable?
-                                      (map-manifest-entries
-                                       (cut wrapped-manifest-entry <> #:proot? proot?)
-                                       manifest)
+                                      (wrapped-manifest manifest #:proot? proot?)
                                       manifest)))
                    (pack-format (assoc-ref opts 'format))
                    (extra-options (match pack-format
diff --git a/tests/pack.scm b/tests/pack.scm
index 9c7e0a50ba..1d1aef024f 100644
--- a/tests/pack.scm
+++ b/tests/pack.scm
@@ -350,7 +350,9 @@ (define rpm-for-tests
          (profile -> (profile
                       ;; When using '--appimage-extract-and-run', the dynamic
                       ;; linker is necessary, hence glibc below.
-                      (content (packages->manifest (list hello glibc)))
+                      (content (wrapped-manifest
+                                (packages->manifest (list hello glibc))))
+                      (relative-symlinks? #t)
                       (hooks '())
                       (locales? #f)))
          (image   (self-contained-appimage "hello-appimage" profile
@@ -382,7 +384,9 @@ (define rpm-for-tests
          (profile -> (profile
                       ;; When using '--appimage-extract-and-run', the dynamic
                       ;; linker is necessary, hence glibc below.
-                      (content (packages->manifest (list guile-3.0 glibc)))
+                      (content (wrapped-manifest
+                                (packages->manifest (list guile-3.0 glibc))))
+                      (relative-symlinks? #t)
                       (hooks '())
                       (locales? #f)))
          (image   (self-contained-appimage "guile-appimage" profile

base-commit: 80826c6e038997dc47eb455888f0feaa38c08bf5
-- 
2.49.0

Message sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#76850: [PATCH] tests: pack: Fix nondeterministic AppImage tests.
Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 10:27:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.76850.B76850.174410801022019 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 76850
X-GNU-PR-Package: guix
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noelopez@HIDDEN>
Cc: Josselin Poiret <dev@HIDDEN>, 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@HIDDEN>, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@HIDDEN>, Christopher Baines <guix@HIDDEN>
Received: via spool by 76850-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B76850.174410801022019
          (code B ref 76850); Tue, 08 Apr 2025 10:27:02 +0000
Received: (at 76850) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2025 10:26:50 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59231 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1u26AM-0005j5-J2
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2025 06:26:50 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55924)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1u26AK-0005iU-NM
 for 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 08 Apr 2025 06:26:49 -0400
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1u26AD-0006Xo-CT; Tue, 08 Apr 2025 06:26:41 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
 s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To:
 From; bh=MFDzZ8Z4Uw3dznllkvE+WGkpPv6MC/bdauopzL1Xg1Q=; b=jSFoYeAWtiwHVT3UDamg
 0XGlT81N2p5us0RHyXyu9JA0Dui08zD5y9BDtSbLzwgAaUo15Y4tRp9v+6icnQBUX7TokuzbSGvsG
 xS24MHbg9XG2js9pB3Bqz9blKHvyXWv1/QMHw1cPTKFmBsc1h3HDJfq99iFH6kpJUSSODhIDiuFgV
 G5iLW0P/Arw3gIoi3T8vaxu9SwHic8vx1Okk97lsux6ZDmTIwwjysVasUtoGmMKBzg8Vwt80yNLbn
 0t2oR0SAUubLObqVf2r9LJCvNeU8QTXe6zK43TyuDcJpXvCxXn+/g7fArn9/Ult6O0ndDYH42v121
 4FvHDLA8N0quKg==;
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <187fec823285b71c80fff33a86227554575289f7.1743892064.git.noelopez@HIDDEN>
 ("=?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez"'s message of "Sun, 6 Apr 2025 00:31:47
 +0200")
References: <87v7sk5god.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <187fec823285b71c80fff33a86227554575289f7.1743892064.git.noelopez@HIDDEN>
X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/
X-Revolutionary-Date: Nonidi 19 Germinal an 233 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution,?= jour du Radis
X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5
X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc
X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4  0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5
X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2025 12:26:37 +0200
Message-ID: <87v7rf54pu.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---)

Hi No=C3=A9,

No=C3=A9 Lopez <noelopez@HIDDEN> skribis:

> As reported in #76850, the tested AppImages were not actually relocatable=
 and
> would rely on items being available on the environment=E2=80=99s store (a=
part from
> glibc).
>
> * guix/scripts/pack.scm (wrapped-manifest): New function.
> (guix-pack): Extract relocatable manifest to wrapped-manifest.
> * tests/pack.scm: Use relocatable profiles in AppImage tests.
>
> Change-Id: Ib3123054913fce903d215dc0629d806e9fceebc7

Please add a =E2=80=9CFixes=E2=80=9D line and a =E2=80=9CReported-by=E2=80=
=9D tag as is usually done.

> +(define*-public (wrapped-manifest manifest #:rest args)

Simply =E2=80=98define*=E2=80=99.

Otherwise LGTM, thanks for fixing it!

Ludo=E2=80=99.

Last modified: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 10:30:02 UTC

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