bug#42789: Linux-libre 5.8 and beyond

bug#42789: Linux-libre 5.8 and beyond

[Leo Famulari]

On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:17:48PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> If the file name and hash matches a previously downloaded file in your
> store, the guix daemon uses that one and skips the download, regardless
> of the URL.  That's why no error was reported.  There's no version
> number in the file name of the 'deblob-check' file.

We should try to make these files include the version number to avoid
this kind of mistake in the future.

I've CC-ed bug-guix so that we don't forget.

bug#42789: Linux-libre 'deblob-check' file-names do not include a version number

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 175 bytes --]

I've attached a patch that should prevent this kind of mistake in the
future.

We should queue it up to be pushed with the next kernel updates (on the
kernel-updates branch).

[-- Attachment #1.2: 0001-gnu-Use-a-descriptive-file-name-for-linux-libre-debl.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1073 bytes --]

From e9ca6405e351baf4356a7300aa252d25056a322c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:40:49 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Use a descriptive file-name for linux-libre
 'deblob-check' scripts.

Fixes <https://bugs.gnu.org/42789>.

* gnu/packages/linux.scm (linux-libre-deblob-scripts): Use file-name for
the deblob-check script.
---
 gnu/packages/linux.scm | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/linux.scm b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
index a2d6d384ee..9d553e7772 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/linux.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
@@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ defconfig.  Return the appropriate make target if applicable, otherwise return
           (uri (string-append "https://linux-libre.fsfla.org"
                               "/pub/linux-libre/releases/" version "-gnu/"
                               "deblob-check"))
+          (file-name (string-append "linux-libre-" version "-deblob-check"))
           (sha256 deblob-check-hash))))
 
 (define deblob-scripts-5.8
-- 
2.28.0


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

bug#42789: Linux-libre 5.8 and beyond

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Leo,

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:17:48PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> If the file name and hash matches a previously downloaded file in your
>> store, the guix daemon uses that one and skips the download, regardless
>> of the URL.  That's why no error was reported.  There's no version
>> number in the file name of the 'deblob-check' file.
>
> We should try to make these files include the version number to avoid
> this kind of mistake in the future.

That's a good idea.  In a later message you posted a proposed patch:

> From e9ca6405e351baf4356a7300aa252d25056a322c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:40:49 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Use a descriptive file-name for linux-libre
>  'deblob-check' scripts.
> 
> Fixes <https://bugs.gnu.org/42789>.
> 
> * gnu/packages/linux.scm (linux-libre-deblob-scripts): Use file-name for
> the deblob-check script.
> ---
>  gnu/packages/linux.scm | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/linux.scm b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> index a2d6d384ee..9d553e7772 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> @@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ defconfig.  Return the appropriate make target if applicable, otherwise return
>            (uri (string-append "https://linux-libre.fsfla.org"
>                                "/pub/linux-libre/releases/" version "-gnu/"
>                                "deblob-check"))
> +          (file-name (string-append "linux-libre-" version "-deblob-check"))
>            (sha256 deblob-check-hash))))
>  
>  (define deblob-scripts-5.8

If we're going to prefix "linux-libre-" to the name, which I agree is a
good idea, maybe we should add the same prefix to the other 'deblob'
script, for consistency.  Also for consistency, I think the version
number should be at the end, after "deblob-check", as is the case for
the other deblob script.

There's also the question of whether the micro version number should be
included in the file name.  In practice, these deblob scripts almost
never change from one micro version to the next.  Also, I suspect
(although I've not yet confirmed it) that these deblob scripts likely
work for older kernels in the same stable series.

For those reasons, at present the micro version number appears only in
the URLs, and not in either the file names or in the version number as
recorded in the first element of the triplet returned by
'linux-libre-deblob-scripts'.  I'd personally be inclined to keep it
that way, although I don't feel strongly about it.

What do you think?

      Thanks,
        Mark

bug#42789: Linux-libre 5.8 and beyond

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1278 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 11:46:34PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> If we're going to prefix "linux-libre-" to the name, which I agree is a
> good idea, maybe we should add the same prefix to the other 'deblob'
> script, for consistency.  Also for consistency, I think the version
> number should be at the end, after "deblob-check", as is the case for
> the other deblob script.
>
> There's also the question of whether the micro version number should be
> included in the file name.  In practice, these deblob scripts almost
> never change from one micro version to the next.  Also, I suspect
> (although I've not yet confirmed it) that these deblob scripts likely
> work for older kernels in the same stable series.
> 
> For those reasons, at present the micro version number appears only in
> the URLs, and not in either the file names or in the version number as
> recorded in the first element of the triplet returned by
> 'linux-libre-deblob-scripts'.  I'd personally be inclined to keep it
> that way, although I don't feel strongly about it.

Good ideas. I've taken them into account on my local branch while I test
building the final tarballs. I'll push to the kernel-updates branch once
I am satisfied with the result.

Thanks for your feedback!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

bug#42789: Linux-libre 5.8 and beyond

[Leo Famulari]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 535 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 06:46:01PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> Good ideas. I've taken them into account on my local branch while I test
> building the final tarballs. I'll push to the kernel-updates branch once
> I am satisfied with the result.

I've pushed an updated patch to the kernel-updates branch:

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?h=kernel-updates&id=387446c93261868bd4c4188687b508aa0a2da7e8

It will be built on the build farm here, based on commit b1f5568b1:

https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/kernel-updates

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

bug#42789: Linux-libre 5.8 and beyond

[Mark H Weaver]

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> wrote:

> I've pushed an updated patch to the kernel-updates branch:
> 
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?h=kernel-updates&id=387446c93261868bd4c4188687b508aa0a2da7e8

Looks good to me.  Thank you!

       Mark

bug#42789: Linux-libre 5.8 and beyond

[Leo Famulari]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 05:34:21PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> wrote:
> 
> > I've pushed an updated patch to the kernel-updates branch:
> > 
> > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?h=kernel-updates&id=387446c93261868bd4c4188687b508aa0a2da7e8
> 
> Looks good to me.  Thank you!

Pushed as 1bc275034fe8070c720ca341db2d9588480aa044