Received: (at 76850) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2025 10:26:50 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 08 06:26:50 2025 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: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN> To: =?utf-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noelopez@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#76850: [PATCH] tests: pack: Fix nondeterministic AppImage tests. In-Reply-To: <187fec823285b71c80fff33a86227554575289f7.1743892064.git.noelopez@HIDDEN> (=?utf-8?Q?=22No=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=A9vol?= =?utf-8?Q?ution=2C?= 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 76850 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> 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.
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#76850; Package guix.
Full text available.
Received: (at 76850) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2025 22:32:18 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 05 18:32:18 2025
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=20Lopez?= <noelopez@HIDDEN>
To: 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] tests: pack: Fix nondeterministic AppImage tests.
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
X-Debbugs-Cc: Christopher Baines <guix@HIDDEN>, Josselin Poiret <dev@HIDDEN>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@HIDDEN>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@HIDDEN>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@HIDDEN>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 76850
Cc: =?UTF-8?q?No=C3=A9=20Lopez?= <noelopez@HIDDEN>
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
guix@HIDDEN, dev@HIDDEN, ludo@HIDDEN, othacehe@HIDDEN, zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN, me@HIDDEN, bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#76850; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at 76850) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Apr 2025 22:29:37 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 05 18:29:36 2025 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45212 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1u1C19-0008JH-Od for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2025 18:29:36 -0400 Received: from smtp.domeneshop.no ([2a01:5b40:0:3006::1]:54812) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <noe@HIDDEN>) id 1u1C15-0008Iy-Ei for 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 Apr 2025 18:29:33 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xn--no-cja.eu; s=ds202502; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date: Subject:Cc:To:From:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=yJ3rEIQJ+/JXXkj5r5nlgUPIjXoCLjg9CBs83nO4sUE=; b=pHYWGrBVCOBeRS4S52vQyEVfLW uONA93uUa/DbqXIyiOiKWn8wGP6iQugseze5pVH8YXxAMsAy9vZjyHEn+tVVCT2bCclWG/rLmysxK 9kX72VEBqf9UBvsrTdt5IvdUT+ZRwcfRM7lOeZsOU5uCAFd63lJRe5jaG1sllfvBt4lenDTW0O4Nr ATmwX+IT7gQnk6eVd338851Qo26N66VEaiqi9BfiNfmFKto0SSWP+WQAdH4ia0UVqrqjYGPvQYl4b 5/fCpsPVbOm73ng8cWufqBEG/1uq1pkIb/QyhB6WVwem0Vmk36t969XEYmXW42/Z53IfjwNtiQCfl VDwP3BnQ==; Received: from smtp by smtp.domeneshop.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) id 1u1C0y-0046av-IF; Sun, 06 Apr 2025 00:29:24 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noe@HIDDEN> To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>, Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#76850: tests/pack.scm failure (AppImage) 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" X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 76850 Cc: 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org 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 (-) --=-=-= 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----- iQHGBAEBCAAwFiEEXVTPJVeyOOiNwYCiLSIyQQq3QEMFAmfxrr0SHG5vZUB4bi0t bm8tY2phLmV1AAoJEC0iMkEKt0BD/J8MAMi1dVAThQnoDZLvqD8wFqLFiQITGmWr HEoCzJhFTkaIY/Ku2bN1hBudGD/43N56Lhv4uztHkwLMmg/53LR0IM3e5m++ZZmK iuPKzObCwQiU/4OyZuXGadJOXYPaVRyMWfJhz4mtuho8zxz9SXhmxgFIq7Xc2/09 MUjFbn74GhhJepWB1rIa68Lqr770REzYvyKHVO8gaFwGJiYoDQg1LBGPGaKTnXrX jC5mJrANJRRNUg/1kYyIHWiB+sVc4CGl0jSllievSv8aFeqg6nXscI1XoH2LPRXQ PUned3CJlMWHsOusQAW9i1WRR56OpDfgaJLfkz1tVzsK9xdXsYLZ0b97w91s3RqM bbQoCiSWAUtqrBrKehjKh1Nk9Q/TK432wlqgWZbJOc9lEw0LhW+M+R6NW7t9K6jM 5cqK+ngi0SDg8JykgLYkJxj5vJwrRaWVmdIsVURR7/EE+9JCI77wA8SvMQrI3vDn Zvs2cArtyKEQ+5AHjR2fB3RfHTMZVtD+kQ== =Ij4g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#76850; Package guix.
Full text available.
Received: (at 76850) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Mar 2025 19:48:14 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Mon Mar 17 15:48:13 2025
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32817 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1tuGRZ-00044C-7e
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:48:13 -0400
Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]:33528)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1tuGRV-00042n-Ig
for 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:48:10 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED8B28B;
Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:48:02 +0100 (CET)
Authentication-Results: hera.aquilenet.fr;
none
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavis at hera.aquilenet.fr
Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP
id LJ9OYZZ7s5cT; Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:48:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ribbon (91-160-117-201.subs.proxad.net [91.160.117.201])
by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D18D41C7;
Mon, 17 Mar 2025 20:48:01 +0100 (CET)
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
To: Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#76850: tests/pack.scm failure (AppImage)
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
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: AED8B28B
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [5.46 / 15.00]; SPAM_FLAG(5.00)[];
BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[100.00%]; NEURAL_SPAM(3.00)[1.000];
R_MIXED_CHARSET(0.56)[subject]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain];
MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2];
FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[];
TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[];
RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[];
FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3];
MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]
X-Spam-Level: *****
X-Rspamd-Action: greylist
X-Spamd-Bar: +++++
X-Rspamd-Server: hera
X-Spam-Score: 2.4 (++)
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. Noé, 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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 76850
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?No=C3=A9_Lopez?= <noe@HIDDEN>, 76850 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
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. Noé, 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
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#76850; Package guix.
Full text available.
Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2025 03:46:35 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Fri Mar 07 22:46:35 2025
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51842 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1tql90-0002VM-DN
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 22:46:34 -0500
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:40466)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <reepca@HIDDEN>)
id 1tql8w-0002Ub-R9
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 22:46:32 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <reepca@HIDDEN>)
id 1tql8i-0000JD-TO
for bug-guix@HIDDEN; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 22:46:19 -0500
Received: from mailout.russelstein.xyz ([2605:6400:20:11e::1])
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <reepca@HIDDEN>)
id 1tql8g-0004Gj-LC
for bug-guix@HIDDEN; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 22:46:16 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=russelstein.xyz; s=ed25519; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:
Subject:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:
Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc
:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:
List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
bh=NFdtr7gGUbVXfFERULyiTfY/Hh+rSvMilvdPLmPA8jo=; b=g5J1ZzQa13ZDd1jbNT9kKfrJ+J
BqQ0FnaRw75Bf7DlCtiMOVQH17EcCq2hkcLVmqhEXuOXyOpO2ERehHmGpeBw==;
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=russelstein.xyz; s=rsa; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject
:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:
Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc
:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:
List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive;
bh=NFdtr7gGUbVXfFERULyiTfY/Hh+rSvMilvdPLmPA8jo=; b=LZkeCXEZDjMLL7bi8Vup54MdcO
G67ucCxa0Kbmbm6Hb+puR6GKKMYZkiDOgaYzMJUt/HtlLX0FIQleikPldtbz5GIhWC3iu9MBgpLKt
cagfr+p1zciIewvlvXaB83eQA30d+dc6xyCz0GNWWh0KOKXtQIY+kXlsqXWAMnrsuYvesu0VVDrtv
DelRHgQquz0Tb6YI5zdTUsY+KkIzNZ9PatecfNFbDoFvxdNLe2HLmRP9TXVTpuvvlpZDImeEiQ1aK
cwEhKd7+aJZNWsIsTg9EJEKiA41LFHiaOsTGOnpuV6botBpXtL6in2c3jgZ+D73/pDOzDADsYlbnw
JtmtrCzvuI9NlisXTjxblLtu1acK2sf3UtvXmlBuGtfqpVpz97l7ydGzDA73uqrnsEbmXfQyMExID
f1hWRpwNyRMJzzf+v3f32CUWst3rnvpvPi/f/7n0aKI/ISr6gKw+2VJBkVkAzZTcvTOmUttBAP+cY
qTzJP8RY+g2qqFoFTX4YJwyfCDITrd6TlaORkRJVOPvc86/iRN/uv6T7OYBNTY4h1OisZJL8MJ07j
irR/wJagY1hJTU9tpSKxtIFJYfw2cyrlTsEklI24uXKsPUYvTFxxgerums3SHD4N02i3SWhpyDnQq
QNISVOy1pMt/TjguOY/jqdpeUF1NVVqFxjgFtiItk=;
Received: by russelstein.xyz with esmtpsa
(TLS1.3:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256)
(Exim 4.98) (envelope-from <reepca@HIDDEN>)
id 1tql8V-000000003ln-3OTB for bug-guix@HIDDEN;
Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:46:10 -0600
From: Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN>
To: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Subject: tests/pack.scm failure (AppImage)
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"
X-Spam-Score: 0.9
X-Spam-Bar: /
X-Spam-Score-Int: 9
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "Sanctum",
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: (0.9 points, 5.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP
0.4 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD_FP From abused NTLD
0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD
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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
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-----
--=-=-=--
Reepca Russelstein <reepca@HIDDEN>:bug-guix@HIDDEN.
Full text available.bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#76850; Package guix.
Full text available.
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.