[ 2 of 16] Compiling Test.QuickCheck.Random ( Test/QuickCheck/Random.hs, dist/build/Test/QuickCheck/Random.o, dist/build/Test/QuickCheck/Random.dyn_o ) Test/QuickCheck/Random.hs:31:10: error: • No instance for (RandomGen SMGen) arising from a use of ‘split’ • In the expression: split g In the expression: ------------------------------------------------------------------- This is an unstable amd64 chroot image at a tinderbox (==build bot) name: 17.1_desktop_plasma_systemd-20210330-172720 ------------------------------------------------------------------- gcc-config -l: [1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-10.3.0 * clang version 11.1.0 Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Thread model: posix InstalledDir: /usr/lib/llvm/11/bin /usr/lib/llvm/11 11.1.0 Python 3.8.9 Available Ruby profiles: [1] ruby26 (with Rubygems) [2] ruby30 (with Rubygems) * Available Rust versions: [1] rust-bin-1.51.0 [2] rust-1.51.0 * The following VMs are available for generation-2: 1) IcedTea JDK 3.18.0 [icedtea-8] *) AdoptOpenJDK 8.282_p08 [openjdk-bin-8] Available Java Virtual Machines: [1] icedtea-8 [2] openjdk-bin-8 system-vm The Glorious Glasgow Haskell Compilation System, version 8.10.4 timestamp(s) of HEAD at this tinderbox image: /var/db/repos/gentoo Sun Apr 11 08:50:32 UTC 2021 emerge -qpvO dev-haskell/quickcheck [ebuild N ] dev-haskell/quickcheck-2.13.2 USE="template-haskell -doc -hscolour -profile -test"
Created attachment 699213 [details] emerge-info.txt
Created attachment 699216 [details] dev-haskell:quickcheck-2.13.2:20210411-092135.log
Created attachment 699219 [details] emerge-history.txt
Created attachment 699222 [details] environment
Created attachment 699225 [details] etc.portage.tar.bz2
Created attachment 699228 [details] temp.tar.bz2
> Using pkg-config version 0.29.2 found on system at: /usr/bin/pkg-config Is this a typo? I'm trying to reproduce this error - compiling gcc-10.3.0 at the moment, but meanwhile noticed that the tinderbox's pkg-config version doesn't match mine. I can't test with 0.29.2 though because I don't see it in ::gentoo
(In reply to wolfgang from comment #7) > > Using pkg-config version 0.29.2 found on system at: /usr/bin/pkg-config > > Is this a typo? > > I'm trying to reproduce this error - compiling gcc-10.3.0 at the moment, but > meanwhile noticed that the tinderbox's pkg-config version doesn't match mine. > > I can't test with 0.29.2 though because I don't see it in ::gentoo https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/dev-util/pkgconfig but it’s generally considered inferior to pkgconf (the default provider of the virtual).
Created attachment 706275 [details] ezziey_build.log I've diffed this build.log to the one uploaded by tinderbox and don't really see any appreciable differences. Based on Sam's last comment I'll try reproducing with the other pkgconf provider.
update: dang, still cannot reproduce, even with dev-util/pkgconfig. Based on the build.log I uploaded, any other thoughts on what I might do to reproduce this?
(In reply to wolfgang from comment #10) > update: dang, still cannot reproduce, even with dev-util/pkgconfig. > > Based on the build.log I uploaded, any other thoughts on what I might do to > reproduce this? Disable the Haskell overlay if you haven’t already, then merge the list of packages in his emerge history maybe?
> Disable the Haskell overlay if you haven’t already, then merge > the list of packages in his emerge history maybe? Good idea. I manually checked all his dependency versions versus mine and did not see any differences, but what you've suggested is a logical next step.
Hrm, i rebuilt the whole tree (using -e, i know: overkill) but still can't reproduce. Is there any other info i can provide that might shed some light on what I'm doing wrong?
Given it's a type error it means something does not define required instance. You also need to check if your haskell USE flags match the flags tested in this bug. Glancing at etc.portage.tar.bz2 a few entries look suspicios, like: dev-haskell/splitmix optimised-mixer -random
(In reply to Sergei Trofimovich from comment #14) > You also need to check if your haskell USE flags match the flags tested in > this bug. Ah, thanks for the hint. I'll work through that list next
