From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:22:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YFn5r6xUyy34kwMm@jurong> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v99iki3l.fsf@netris.org>
Hello Mark and Léo,
Am Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 05:12:35PM -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
> However, I think it would be going too far to adopt your proposal as a
> general rule for all grafts. In some cases, it can clearly be seen that
> an upstream release includes little more than bug fixes. For example,
> if the recent gvfs-1.40.2 security update had required grafting, I would
> not have hesitated to do so, and that would have been much simpler and
> IMO cleaner than importing the upstream patches into our tree.
Am Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 02:34:52PM +0100 schrieb Léo Le Bouter:
> In general my opinion is that backporting fixes is time-consuming and
> that if we have to do it each time I wont be able to keep up with the
> load. I'd rather update things to a version that already includes fixes
> and is supported by upstream even at the cost of world rebuilds. I
> can't deal with upstreams who either do not backport fixes, or don't
> integrate fixes at all.
these are very good arguments, which I understand and share. But moving
to another version is problematic even when there is no soname bump, as
I wrote in my bug report https://issues.guix.gnu.org/47315; grafts with
different version numbers lead to a command line behaviour that is not
understandable:
$ guix package -A imagemagick
imagemagick 6.9.12-2g out,doc gnu/packages/imagemagick.scm:132:2
imagemagick 6.9.11-48 out,doc gnu/packages/imagemagick.scm:48:2
$ guix build imagemagick@6.9.11
guix build: error: imagemagick: package not found for version 6.9.11
$ guix build imagemagick@6.9.11-48
/gnu/store/c30y49vg735g6b4hh590zrc9fmvcsy0w-imagemagick-6.9.12-2g-doc
/gnu/store/l3hr0fimip6v7vmkgxbqygsglxaxasy0-imagemagick-6.9.12-2g
From a user's perspective, inkscape@6.9.11 is at the time there and not
there; it is shown by "guix package", but then not accessible for install-
ation, but silently "glossed over" in favour of a different version.
I just noticed that I can do this:
$ guix build imagemagick@6.9.11-48 --no-grafts
/gnu/store/wlnciwhn6llwqwywf4hq739v5bbcrq3h-imagemagick-6.9.11-48-doc
/gnu/store/vlix7fclb7ifjgmxgpwr1pvraff89w7b-imagemagick-6.9.11-48
But I can also do this:
$ guix build imagemagick@6.9.12-2g --no-grafts
/gnu/store/4s20df0zjmmys8zvlvynksrwz5xqk9ls-imagemagick-6.9.12-2g-doc
/gnu/store/7iwx7rj1ipsbgb9wgimrrflniyxpilw3-imagemagick-6.9.12-2g
where I do not know what I would have expected - the ungrafted version
of 6.9.12 is 6.9.11, no? At the same time, for once it respects my
wish for a specific version.
Otherwise said, grafting to different versions breaks our semantic for
designating packages, in which version numbers play an important role,
and replaces it by a mess which even with the examples above I have a
hard time understanding.
Caeterum censeo:
The real fix is probably to do less grafts and more rebuilds...
Andreas
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-23 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-19 9:40 imagemagick@6.9.11-48 to graft or not to graft with 6.9.12-2 Léo Le Bouter
2021-03-19 11:12 ` Julien Lepiller
2021-03-21 14:04 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-03-22 10:53 ` zimoun
2021-03-22 16:55 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-03-22 10:29 ` Andreas Enge
2021-03-22 21:12 ` Mark H Weaver
2021-03-23 13:34 ` Léo Le Bouter
2021-03-23 17:42 ` Leo Famulari
2021-03-23 14:07 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-03-23 23:32 ` Mark H Weaver
2021-03-23 14:22 ` Andreas Enge [this message]
2021-03-23 14:38 ` Léo Le Bouter
2021-03-23 17:45 ` Leo Famulari
2021-03-23 23:05 ` Mark H Weaver
2021-03-24 4:12 ` Leo Famulari
2021-03-23 23:42 ` Mark H Weaver
2021-03-24 10:15 ` zimoun
2021-03-27 15:48 ` Andreas Enge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YFn5r6xUyy34kwMm@jurong \
--to=andreas@enge.fr \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=mhw@netris.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).