From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timothy Sample Subject: bug#39771: [core-updates] 'guix pull' and './pre-inst-env' produces different derivations Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 18:11:56 -0500 Message-ID: <87pnduwdvn.fsf@ngyro.com> References: <87a7574qnf.fsf@devup.no> <87imjmk4ip.fsf@devup.no> <87d09ujykb.fsf@devup.no> 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]:33167) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j8uFD-0000qC-JS for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 18:13:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j8uFC-0005w6-IA for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 18:13:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60749) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j8uFC-0005w0-F9 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 18:13:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j8uFC-0006vB-B8 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 18:13:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-To: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87d09ujykb.fsf@devup.no> (Marius Bakke's message of "Mon, 02 Mar 2020 21:23:32 +0100") 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-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Marius Bakke Cc: 39771-done@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Marius, Marius Bakke writes: > Marius Bakke writes: > >> >> I've tracked this down to 'gash-boot'. Namely the use of ,(version): it >> evaluates to '2.2.6' when run with ./pre-inst-env and "3.0.0" after >> 'guix pull'. >> >> I suspect both are wrong, and that it really intends to use the version >> of gash here. Timothy, can you confirm? Definitely wrong! I think I had somehow convinced myself that the version of Gash was available when inheriting but delayed via a thunk. The fact that it happily returns the current Guile version means that I never noticed how wrong I was. Sorry! >> Currently trying to 'guix pull' with a hard coded "2.2.6" version to >> see if other instances need changing. > > This patch solves the problem without triggering a full rebuild: > > [...] > > I have another full-rebuild commit in the pipeline (bzip2 currently > keeps a reference to the Mes toolchain), so we might as well fix it > properly. > > Waiting for confirmation from Timothy as to what the proper fix is, > though. It should be using =E2=80=9Cpackage-version=E2=80=9D to get the versions fr= om the parent packages. Fixed in 0b870f7915f5da43758753fd088a22033936dc50. -- Tim