From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Subject: bug#36747: Official MesCC bootstrap binaries differ from my locally
 built ones
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 03:42:40 -0400
Message-ID: <87y2zteet0.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>
 <87mugaf8ph.fsf@netris.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42215)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hyWu5-0002V2-3H
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 03:44:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hyWu2-0005cV-SN
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 03:44:04 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44202)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1hyWu2-0005c4-E5
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 03:44:02 -0400
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.36747.B36747.156594139513495@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <87mugaf8ph.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Thu, 15
 Aug 2019 16:56:47 -0400")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
 <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
 <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "bug-Guix" <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
Cc: 36747@debbugs.gnu.org

Hi Marius,

Earlier I wrote:

> Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> writes:
>> I can look into adjusting the bash fix for 5.0, and updating the
>> bootstrap binary URLs and hashes.
>
> I've attached preliminary untested patches for these.  I'm testing them
> now.

I pushed those two commits to 'core-updates-next', and am currently
building out that branch on my X200.  So far I've successfully built the
core packages and 'hello', and am now continuing on to build the rest of
my Guix system.

Anyway, I'm long past the point where the slight differences made to the
new bootstrap binaries to make them deterministic should have any
effects, so I think it's fairly safe to predict that these commits will
not introduce new problems.

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> wrote:
> Ricardo: can you instruct Cuirass to add a reduced jobset for
> 'core-updates-next', that only builds builds the "core" package subset?

For now, I did as you suggested and pushed the commits to
'core-updates-next', although personally I'd be inclined to simply push
them to 'core-updates', after the new bootstrap binaries have either
been uploaded or manually added to Berlin's store.

What do you think?

      Mark