From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#36747: Official MesCC bootstrap binaries differ from my locally built ones Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 23:58:24 -0400 Message-ID: <87a7bvnts4.fsf@netris.org> References: <875znwcoo9.fsf@netris.org> <87ef2j1pgt.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftmy51kk.fsf@netris.org> <87muh6sib4.fsf@gnu.org> <877e8a79mz.fsf@netris.org> <87pnm2ufv1.fsf@gnu.org> <87lfwpqpb7.fsf@netris.org> <875znt2hlc.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhke97xj.fsf@netris.org> <87h86mdaex.fsf@gnu.org> <8736i5a7mb.fsf@netris.org> <87mugdbc9r.fsf@gnu.org> <8736i3iyas.fsf@devup.no> <87zhkbhd07.fsf@devup.no> <87v9uz4msh.fsf@netris.org> <87woffh66h.fsf@devup.no> <874l26y9j0.fsf@gnu.org> <87d0guuwt4.fsf@netris.org> <87zhjw1gfm.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58903) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i2SeJ-0002NO-VT for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i2SeI-0004lR-VJ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38633) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i2SeI-0004lL-QS for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:00:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87zhjw1gfm.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:25:49 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 36747@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >>> Also, what=E2=80=99s the next step for =E2=80=98wip-binaries=E2=80=99? >> >> Good question! First, I think we should tag it with a name that >> indicates that it was used to build the 20190815 bootstrap binaries. >> >> Optionally, I would advocate merging 'wip-binaries' into 'master'. > > Fine with me! Could you take care of tagging and merging? I tagged 'wip-binaries' and merged it into master, but there's an undesirable side effect. After the merge, "git describe" from 'master' now returns "bootstrap-20190815-222-g32e18e9b94". Mark