From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: bug#36747: Official MesCC bootstrap binaries differ from my locally built ones Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 10:25:49 +0200 Message-ID: <87zhjw1gfm.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> <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> 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]:47322) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i2AKB-0002Xi-MJ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 04:26:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i2AKA-0001ke-FC for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 04:26:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:36738) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i2AKA-0001kW-C7 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2019 04:26:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87d0guuwt4.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Sat, 24 Aug 2019 16:34:20 -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 Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> I don=E2=80=99t think we explicitly discussed it, but my assumption is t= hat >> we=E2=80=99re delaying merging of =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 into = =E2=80=98master=E2=80=99 until >> =E2=80=98core-updates-next=E2=80=99 becomes =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80= =99. Is this what you had in >> mind? (I=E2=80=99m asking because =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 was al= most entirely built >> IIRC.) > > My preference would be to merge 'core-updates-next' into 'core-updates', > or equivalently, to apply the following 3 commits to 'core-updates': > > commit d4bc93abe59e8ffcb8304050c05e727fe0230651 > Author: Mark H Weaver > Date: Thu Aug 15 15:39:30 2019 -0400 > > gnu: bootstrap: Update to the 20190815 bootstrap binaries. >=20=20=20 > * gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm (%bootstrap-linux-libre-headers): Update t= he > download URL. > (%bootstrap-mescc-tools, %bootstrap-mes): Update the download URL and h= ash. > > commit 82eaac49ac983f28768d6623d802f41cbd7f779b > Author: Mark H Weaver > Date: Thu Aug 15 16:44:36 2019 -0400 > > gnu: bash: Unconditionally configure PGRP_PIPE for *-linux systems. >=20=20=20 > * gnu/packages/patches/bash-linux-pgrp-pipe.patch: New file. > * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it. > * gnu/packages/bash.scm (bash)[source]: Add the patch. > > commit 47fcdfac44c5bf236299679781133468be6f0207 > Author: Ludovic Court=C3=A8s > Date: Thu Aug 22 11:47:27 2019 +0200 > > gnu: bootstrap: Add ftp.gnu.org to '%bootstrap-base-urls'. >=20=20=20 > * gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm (%bootstrap-base-urls): Add > ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guix/bootstrap. > > These commits are the only difference between 'core-updates' and > 'core-updates-next'. OK. The Bash change means we=E2=80=99re rebuilding from scratch on architectures, not just x86. So I=E2=80=99ll probably ungraft my Ghostscri= pt fix (466ff55c72959ba1499ce3ec69f534b3038eb30b) while we=E2=80=99re at it. > I'm confident that this will make no difference to the set of packages > that build successfully, modulo non-determistic build failures. The > only additional time it should require is the time needed for Berlin to > rebuild the branch. > > Otherwise, 'core-updates-next' seems to be in good shape, and possibly > almost ready to merge into 'master'. I admit that this assessment is > based solely on the fact that I'm currently using it on my own machine, > and it works well. Without Hydra's interface for comparing evaluations, > I'm mostly blind to the status of the branch beyond of the set of > packages I use myself. I find that =E2=80=98guix weather -c=E2=80=99 gives a rather good overview = of the situation, though it=E2=80=99s not equivalent to comparing with another evaluation. > In my opinion, 'core-updates' in its current form should never be merged > into 'master', because it's built upon non-deterministic bootstrap > tarballs that cannot be independently verified. > > What do you think? That sounds good to me. I think we should start real soon, then. Marius? >> 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? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.