From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>
Cc: 36747@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#36747: Official MesCC bootstrap binaries differ from my locally built ones
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:42:25 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8736i5a7mb.fsf@netris.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h86mdaex.fsf@gnu.org> (Jan Nieuwenhuizen's message of "Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:01:58 +0200")
Hi Janneke,
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> writes:
> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> It seems to me that the best way to accomplish this is to backport the
>> new '%bootstrap-tarballs' from 'wip-cu-binaries' to the 'master' branch.
>
> I called that `wip-binaries', @master from three weeks ago.
Thank you, that was a good start. I found that some additional patches
were needed to match the bootstrap binaries that 'core-updates' is
currently based on.
I ended up deleting and repushing a revised 'wip-binaries' to Savannah.
It includes slightly modified versions of the two commits you had
included, as well as some additional cherry-picked commits of yours to
update mescc-tools and add linux-libre-headers-bootstrap-tarball, and a
few of my own.
I built the new bootstrap tarballs at the new 'wip-binaries', commit
c67becb31c30a5cd7685f166970ac4793e3a34a9, and here's what I got:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
mhw@jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ git describe
v1.0.1-2404-gc67becb31c
mhw@jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ ./pre-inst-env guix build --system=i686-linux bootstrap-tarballs
/gnu/store/bg086i2qw1fn2jgbd15d9v91hyjrjsb2-bootstrap-tarballs-0
mhw@jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ cd /gnu/store/bg086i2qw1fn2jgbd15d9v91hyjrjsb2-bootstrap-tarballs-0
mhw@jojen /gnu/store/bg086i2qw1fn2jgbd15d9v91hyjrjsb2-bootstrap-tarballs-0$ sha256sum *
3e50c070a100b6bcf84c4bf5c868f9cd0a9fd1570f5d82fbfb78f8411959091b guile-static-stripped-2.2.4-i686-linux.tar.xz
1acd8f83e27d2fac311a5ca78e9bf11a9a1638b82469870d5c854c4e7afaa26a linux-libre-headers-stripped-4.14.67-i686-linux.tar.xz
021543d9bb6af55f39e68d69692e3cb74646ced2cad0bb9ac0047ef81e9d7330 mescc-tools-static-stripped-0.5.2-0.bb062b0-i686-linux.tar.xz
fb32090071b39fc804fb9a7fba96f0bc5eb844a0efd268fb24c42e6bfa959de0 mes-minimal-stripped-0.19-i686-linux.tar.xz
c80cdd17b0a24eebdd75570ff72c4ec06e129bd702ac008186b57f6301c448e7 static-binaries-0-i686-linux.tar.xz
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
All of these match what you posted here earlier except for
guile-static-stripped-2.2.4. In my final commit to 'wip-binaries'
I disabled the parallel build in guile-static, which I hope might
make that build deterministic.
Can you try "guix build --system=i686-linux bootstrap-tarballs" at the
new 'wip-binaries' branch and see if you get the same results?
Also, I have a question: One of the changes I made to 'wip-binaries' was
to update mescc-tools to 0.5.2-0.bb062b0, to match the
%bootstrap-mescc-tools that's currently being used in 'core-updates'.
However, I noticed that you have also apparently built the official
release of mescc-tools-0.5.2, which is on your site:
http://lilypond.org/janneke/guix/20190722/mescc-tools-static-stripped-0.5.2-i686-linux.tar.xz
and that this tarball is identical to the build output of the later git
commit: mescc-tools-static-stripped-0.5.2-0.bb062b0-i686-linux.tar.xz.
With this in mind, could we just use 0.5.2? What changed between 0.5.2
and 0.5.2-0.bb062b0, and what was the rationale for updating to bb062b0?
Here's the relevant commit:
commit 7cbf6f1ca268a7a179d715aaba2a451a8886ab44
Author: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>
Date: Fri Oct 12 08:19:53 2018 +0200
gnu: mescc-tools: Update to 0.5.2-0.bb062b0d.
* gnu/packages/mes.scm (mescc-tools): Update to 0.5.2-0.bb062b0d.
mescc
* gnu/packages/commencement.scm (mescc-tools-boot): Stay at 0.5.2
Anyway, thanks for all of your work on this.
Best,
Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-13 6:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-20 22:43 bug#36747: Official MesCC bootstrap binaries differ from my locally built ones Mark H Weaver
2019-07-21 13:34 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2019-07-22 0:56 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-07-22 6:18 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2019-07-22 6:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2019-07-22 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2019-07-22 8:31 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-07-22 17:41 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2019-07-23 5:42 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-07-23 6:28 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2019-08-12 0:21 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-12 4:11 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-07-23 10:03 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-12 7:08 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-12 9:01 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2019-08-13 6:42 ` Mark H Weaver [this message]
2019-08-13 10:17 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen
2019-08-14 15:03 ` Marius Bakke
2019-08-14 17:29 ` Marius Bakke
2019-08-14 18:35 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-14 18:43 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-14 19:56 ` Marius Bakke
2019-08-14 20:43 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-15 19:44 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-15 21:19 ` Marius Bakke
2019-08-15 23:16 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-15 20:56 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-16 7:42 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-17 16:49 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-16 10:49 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-16 16:59 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-17 21:38 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-18 1:17 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-18 9:26 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-20 18:40 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-21 20:15 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-21 21:38 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-21 22:57 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-22 10:09 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-24 13:31 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-24 20:34 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-26 8:25 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-26 18:36 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-27 9:38 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-29 22:28 ` Bengt Richter
2019-08-27 3:58 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-27 9:40 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-27 14:27 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-27 16:04 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-27 16:46 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-28 0:55 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-28 22:12 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-29 5:46 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2019-08-29 6:32 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2019-08-29 19:28 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-29 23:23 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-08-30 19:52 ` Mark H Weaver
2019-08-31 12:44 ` Ludovic Courtès
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=8736i5a7mb.fsf@netris.org \
--to=mhw@netris.org \
--cc=36747@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=janneke@gnu.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).