From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id eMVsI88WgF/jJAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 07:52:47 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id EMI7H88WgF/uZAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 07:52:47 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37CD49402B1 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 07:52:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:44226 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kQnCo-0005gT-1c for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 03:52:46 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39784) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kQnC9-0005Py-BJ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 03:52:05 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:41354) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kQnC6-0000S1-PW for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 03:52:04 -0400 Received: from localhost (188.29.111.164.threembb.co.uk [188.29.111.164]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B24B027BBE8; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 08:51:59 +0100 (BST) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 6521bd67; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 07:51:57 +0000 (UTC) References: <86d01s89lj.fsf@gmail.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.1 From: Christopher Baines To: zimoun Subject: Re: Why unrelated package trigger rebuild? In-reply-to: <86d01s89lj.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 08:51:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87mu0vzvj6.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.71.252.8; envelope-from=mail@cbaines.net; helo=mira.cbaines.net X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/09 03:52:00 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.01 X-TUID: Ku1X7i/pRIDc zimoun writes: > Dear, > > From the Data Service: > > > > the commit 39222080911eaf3d7f74effe4467c1a04464aef3 which is about the > addition of the package =E2=80=99dkgpg=E2=80=99 modifies the hash of the = package > =E2=80=99ghc-haddock=E2=80=99 from: > > /gnu/store/s7s3ksfhkdbb6k6si8bjnxy8vvywv322-ghc-haddock-2.22.0 > > to: > > /gnu/store/j5llszq1cf12qn79bvhc042wc06ibfix-ghc-haddock-2.22.0 > > Well, I miss why the addition of one package changes the hash of another > unrelated one? Is it expected? I think the first thing to spot is that the Guix Data Service does a poor job of showing what happened. If you look at the 3 outputs that start or end in July (07), the pattern isn't a neat "one after the other". What I think actually happens is that: - 2020-06-13 21:04:16: hash begins lw2 - 2020-07-21 21:57:03: hash begins s7s - after 2020-07-21 21:57:03: hash goes back to beginning lw2 - 2020-07-24 12:22:11: hash begins j5l I think one of the implicit assumptions the query for that page makes, is that the outputs don't really repeat, and in this case, that doesn't hold. I think there's room for improvement to try and correct that. Sorry about that, Chris