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.