Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

go-ethereum: 1.13.5 -> 1.14.3 #311188

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 20, 2024
Merged

go-ethereum: 1.13.5 -> 1.14.3 #311188

merged 1 commit into from
May 20, 2024

Conversation

gileri
Copy link
Contributor

@gileri gileri commented May 12, 2024

Description of changes

See https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/releases/.

proxyVendor = true was needed to avoid the following error :

> # github.com/karalabe/hid
> vendor/github.com/karalabe/hid/hid_enabled.go:43:18: fatal error: os/events_posix.h: No such file or directory
>    43 |         #include "os/events_posix.h"
>       |                  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Things done

  • Built on platform(s)
    • x86_64-linux
    • aarch64-linux
    • x86_64-darwin
    • aarch64-darwin
  • For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
    • sandbox = relaxed
    • sandbox = true
  • Tested, as applicable:
  • Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
  • Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • 24.05 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 and 23.11 Release notes)
    • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
    • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
    • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

@RaghavSood
Copy link
Member

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 311188 run on aarch64-darwin 1

3 packages failed to build:
  • go-ethereum
  • go-ethereum.clef
  • go-ethereum.geth

@RaghavSood
Copy link
Member

Looks like ofBorg gets the build error for linux too: https://logs.ofborg.org/?attempt_id=4ada5d40-bb2c-4c07-91b0-6723f62b51cd&key=nixos%2Fnixpkgs.311188

I'm seeing the same hash on aarch64-darwin:

error: hash mismatch in fixed-output derivation '/nix/store/b9a9y8snhpyf42i21sw22yqv6wkqii8d-go-ethereum-1.14.3-go-modules.drv':
         specified: sha256-yD4Z7vbi3D3f9xGxRQjnjbTKljtjRLeIHRAdWjSub6U=
            got:    sha256-ugoRsxzJjPOS5yPhwqXhMPuThvyqCWvZD7PBnrkm0sQ=

Was the hash perhaps updated before proxyVendor was set to true?

@gileri
Copy link
Contributor Author

gileri commented May 14, 2024

Thanks for the report @RaghavSood !
It could have been the case; but that was because I was building against nixos-23.11, and not nipkgs master.

Output tested, PR updated.

@RaghavSood
Copy link
Member

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 311188 run on aarch64-darwin 1

3 packages built:
  • go-ethereum
  • go-ethereum.clef
  • go-ethereum.geth

Copy link
Member

@RaghavSood RaghavSood left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, will merge after ofborg builds are done

@ofborg ofborg bot requested a review from RaghavSood May 14, 2024 06:50
@RaghavSood
Copy link
Member

Strange failure for x86_64-darwing, will check that out shortly

@RaghavSood
Copy link
Member

@GrahamcOfBorg build go-ethereum

@RaghavSood RaghavSood marked this pull request as draft May 16, 2024 08:35
@gileri
Copy link
Contributor Author

gileri commented May 19, 2024

@RaghavSood Looks like the x86_64-darwing build on Ofborg did pass ?

@RaghavSood
Copy link
Member

@RaghavSood
Copy link
Member

So the failure actually comes from nixosTests, not the build - but also intermittently - merging first, I will check out the tests soon

@RaghavSood RaghavSood marked this pull request as ready for review May 20, 2024 01:02
@RaghavSood RaghavSood merged commit 4cd4ad2 into NixOS:master May 20, 2024
31 checks passed
@RaghavSood
Copy link
Member

Likely related to #294725 - would explain why it failed, then passed - subsequent runs probably had the test build from the previous round of linux tests available in the cache and could download and run it

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants