Re: T040 fails on Fedora 39 rebuild
David Bremner writes: > David Bremner writes: > >> Michael J Gruber writes: >> >>> At first I thought we (notmuch) might have a flushing problem or such, >>> which we should prevent. But this clearly looks like a glib2 >>> regression now which caused others' CI to fail, too. At least you're >>> prepared in case of incoming reports now ;-) >> >> I am seeing related (but less obnoxious) failures with glib 2.77.1 and >> 2.77.2: namely the comment at the beginning of the file is gone and the >> blank lines between groups are gone. Ignoring whitespace variance is >> easy enough, but the missing comment at the beginning indicates either a >> glib regression or notmuch doing it wrong. >> > > Seems like a glib regression, unless there is something forbidden about > the following. Sigh, I guess I need to register for an account to report > a glib bug. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/issues/3078 ___ notmuch mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Re: T040 fails on Fedora 39 rebuild
David Bremner writes:
> Michael J Gruber writes:
>
>> At first I thought we (notmuch) might have a flushing problem or such,
>> which we should prevent. But this clearly looks like a glib2
>> regression now which caused others' CI to fail, too. At least you're
>> prepared in case of incoming reports now ;-)
>
> I am seeing related (but less obnoxious) failures with glib 2.77.1 and
> 2.77.2: namely the comment at the beginning of the file is gone and the
> blank lines between groups are gone. Ignoring whitespace variance is
> easy enough, but the missing comment at the beginning indicates either a
> glib regression or notmuch doing it wrong.
>
Seems like a glib regression, unless there is something forbidden about
the following. Sigh, I guess I need to register for an account to report
a glib bug.
#include
#include
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char** argv){
GKeyFile *file;
size_t length;
char *data, *filename;
GError *error = NULL;
file = g_key_file_new ();
g_key_file_set_comment (file, NULL, NULL, "top comment", NULL);
g_key_file_set_value (file, "section", "dummy_key", "dummy_val");
g_key_file_remove_key (file, "section", "dummy_key", NULL);
g_key_file_set_comment (file,"section",NULL, "section comment",NULL);
data = g_key_file_to_data (file, &length, NULL);
if (data == NULL) {
fprintf (stderr, "Out of memory.\n");
return 1;
}
puts(data);
}
___
notmuch mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Re: T040 fails on Fedora 39 rebuild
Am Fr., 21. Juli 2023 um 03:40 Uhr schrieb David Bremner : > > Michael J Gruber writes: > > > I'm not sure we should or can work around 2.77.0's behaviour. (It > > might get triggered by the add/remove trick.) > > Will FC39 definitely ship with 2.77.0 ? There is still plenty of time, so I hope that 2.77.1 will land soon and I can prod them to carry that (or the fix). If it lands the Fedora notmuch rebuild against it is in my hands. At first I thought we (notmuch) might have a flushing problem or such, which we should prevent. But this clearly looks like a glib2 regression now which caused others' CI to fail, too. At least you're prepared in case of incoming reports now ;-) Cheers Michael ___ notmuch mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Re: T040 fails on Fedora 39 rebuild
Michael J Gruber writes: > I'm not sure we should or can work around 2.77.0's behaviour. (It > might get triggered by the add/remove trick.) Will FC39 definitely ship with 2.77.0 ? ___ notmuch mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Re: T040 fails on Fedora 39 rebuild
Am Do., 20. Juli 2023 um 20:54 Uhr schrieb Michael J Gruber : > > Hi there, > > funny failures again during the mass rebuild for the (not quite yet) > upcoming Fedora rebuild. This test passed just a few weeks ago, so the > failure is related to something else changing. But still it shows that > the order in which `notmuch config` produces new config can depend on > something else. It looks a bit like a buffering problem, but what do I > know ... In any case, this is with notmuch 0.37, and I did not see any > commit in master which could change that. > > I vaguely remember we had g_key_file ordering issues before - maybe in > another project? > > The group comment for the next group is written too early, or the keys > for the current group are written too late. This results in a > functionally equivalent config with "misplaced" comments. > > Test still passes on Fedora 38. Glib2 versions are: > > 2.76.4-1.fc38 > 2.77.0-6.fc39 In fact, glib2 may come with a fix when 2.77.1 is released: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib/-/merge_requests/3380 I'm not sure we should or can work around 2.77.0's behaviour. (It might get triggered by the add/remove trick.) Cheers Michael ___ notmuch mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
