From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Subject: bug#36747: Official MesCC bootstrap binaries differ from my locally built ones Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 12:17:04 +0200 Message-ID: <87mugdbc9r.fsf@gnu.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> 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]:60816) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hxTsW-0004W6-WA for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:18:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hxTsQ-00011P-BW for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:18:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38896) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hxTsQ-00011F-8L for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 06:18:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <8736i5a7mb.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:42:25 -0400") 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: Mark H Weaver Cc: 36747@debbugs.gnu.org Mark H Weaver writes: Hi Mark, >> 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. Very nice. > I built the new bootstrap tarballs at the new 'wip-binaries', commit > c67becb31c30a5cd7685f166970ac4793e3a34a9, and here's what I got: > > mhw@jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ git describe > v1.0.1-2404-gc67becb31c > mhw@jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ ./pre-inst-env guix build --system=3Di686-= linux bootstrap-tarballs > /gnu/store/bg086i2qw1fn2jgbd15d9v91hyjrjsb2-bootstrap-tarballs-0 > mhw@jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ cd /gnu/store/bg086i2qw1fn2jgbd15d9v91hyjr= jsb2-bootstrap-tarballs-0 > mhw@jojen /gnu/store/bg086i2qw1fn2jgbd15d9v91hyjrjsb2-bootstrap-tarballs-= 0$ sha256sum * > 3e50c070a100b6bcf84c4bf5c868f9cd0a9fd1570f5d82fbfb78f8411959091b guile-s= tatic-stripped-2.2.4-i686-linux.tar.xz > 1acd8f83e27d2fac311a5ca78e9bf11a9a1638b82469870d5c854c4e7afaa26a linux-l= ibre-headers-stripped-4.14.67-i686-linux.tar.xz > 021543d9bb6af55f39e68d69692e3cb74646ced2cad0bb9ac0047ef81e9d7330 mescc-t= ools-static-stripped-0.5.2-0.bb062b0-i686-linux.tar.xz > fb32090071b39fc804fb9a7fba96f0bc5eb844a0efd268fb24c42e6bfa959de0 mes-min= imal-stripped-0.19-i686-linux.tar.xz > c80cdd17b0a24eebdd75570ff72c4ec06e129bd702ac008186b57f6301c448e7 static-= binaries-0-i686-linux.tar.xz > Can you try "guix build --system=3Di686-linux bootstrap-tarballs" at the > new 'wip-binaries' branch and see if you get the same results? Yes, on c67becb31c30a5cd7685f166970ac4793e3a34a9 running "./pre-inst-env guix build --system=3Di686-linux bootstrap-tarballs" gives = me exactly this, also for guile-static-stripped! \o/ > 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? Good catch. We probably can, we might try that. I think the need for updating to bb062b0 has been removed during the review of the integration of the reduced binary seed bootstrap into core-updates by Ludovic. For historical reasons, I think this mescc-tools commit --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- commit c184e95096881a13f29ebd7fc507fe305d3d8de5 (gitlab/janneke, janneke) Author: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Date: Thu Oct 4 22:03:31 2018 +0200 build.sh: Update for mes 0.18. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- was needed at a time that we did not have mescc-tools or mes in bootstrap tarballs. We built bootstrap variants of mescc-tools and mes using a externally (outside fo Guix) built mescc-tools-seed and (an almost pure ASCII) mes-seed. Greetings, janneke --=20 Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar=C2=AE http://AvatarAcademy.com