From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id uC5EDJxCUWCMZAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:43:24 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id bDcECJxCUWAYdwAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:43:24 +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 A875B15959 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:43:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:48736 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMJLO-0006OB-NG for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:43:22 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33518) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMJL4-0006M1-2o for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:43:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58145) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMJL3-00045F-SD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:43:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lMJL3-0007RW-Q8 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:43:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#46266] [PATCH] gnu: Update bitcoin-core to 0.21.0 Resent-From: Christopher Baines Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:43:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46266 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: ZmnSCPxj Cc: "46266@debbugs.gnu.org" <46266@debbugs.gnu.org> Received: via spool by 46266-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46266.161593815828574 (code B ref 46266); Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:43:01 +0000 Received: (at 46266) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Mar 2021 23:42:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41458 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lMJKf-0007Qm-Kt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:42:38 -0400 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:33868) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lMJKc-0007Qc-N5 for 46266@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:42:36 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a02:8010:68c1:0:8ac0:b4c7:f5c8:7caa]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D6BC27BC54; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:42:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 94d63631; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:42:33 +0000 (UTC) References: <877dmxltia.fsf@cbaines.net> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.1 From: Christopher Baines In-reply-to: Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:42:30 +0000 Message-ID: <878s6mekd5.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1615938203; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:resent-cc:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references: list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=1EE5tP/hbRPhvO2iS2lSsN2ZQ/SkSeLhQEJAMKP/4fU=; b=N+0N1zrREZZ1fv1bZZCoXJF94l9nucrpeAC3cO4ruK5XITGSG8K7dCscnc3uVUalNkcB3b nm55NQ/rSJRjPrx/Aa21TnzQRuV+4V+2PZvcwk3a9zpmmDgxKSQ32fGY6ThNXReDmwwmeu ijQ2hBcTU43G1SII4UYPVCNZjjPg7/siJgOOivhboEcJdrSIIYCBvCAlKw0Yc6B5wp99Qv T0EM13rDGt28pMOCG0HJVQTELU14A9s3cw/CCmgeTYrtoZloDdcvdOrwx4mDpwxKw+L0bK DG1iFXVnLo7XIsTQKuMyjVarmr14fwcnjkHxGjbEeqQF8v+EPSfwgWzYTZ5SGA== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1615938203; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=q8IzeKR2ZUZqKkR/nvId3D3CjxGITnv0nLx+QP9Z3YExTUT+z39izZJO98P3WZf7iscZKj /XY0Ii/3VdVXoLUGJ3VANaoX+JPi9EzYhaS9271WBbVS21Hd0eLXaSQKSuZGFUShDVr7B+ QqN+0BHmD88GFXAKct0fT7/MelMC/nBPiaEzDnX4S5fGCuXiqI4MU80u2/P55Hm9VaCp+1 dbS1GUdTJEBRjuk+F98CQpM+ZkR15zgFuD3lF2NTkqg9OaoFDhMt3zJ4R1gUOBlXdxnIRI ftQJJrfIDEaBIIK/rFkCc5tMpU4Hnns7/LKkvFR0uak8g/y3DF1gtDnv4Hb+lQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.50 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: A875B15959 X-Spam-Score: -4.50 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: 1CBPZe8EuzGf --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain ZmnSCPxj writes: > Good morning Christopher, > >> Hi ZmnSCPxj, >> >> Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. >> >> guix-patches--- via guix-patches@gnu.org writes: >> >> > In addition to updating, I made as well, separate `bitcoin-core-0.20` >> > and `bitcoin-core-0.21` packages. Due to RPC changes, it is possible >> > that other programs compatible with older `bitcoin-core` version is >> > not compatible with newer version. Thus, an `operating-system` >> > declaration, may need to pin a specific major version. >> >> I think it's OK to keep older versions if that's important, but it would >> be good to specifically note why specific older versions are useful to >> keep. I'm saying that because it's useful to know when an older version >> can be removed. So, for 0.20 are there incompatibilities that you're >> aware of? > > Previously between 0.18.x to 0.19.0.1, the RPC command > `sendrawtransaction` changed its second parameter from a boolean > `allowhighfees` to a numeric `maxfeerate`. Thus, an automated update > from 0.18.x to 0.19.0.1 would have lead to problems in dependent > software that used the older `allowhighfees` parameter. So I think it > is a good policy in general to provide major versions for Bitcoin Core > at least, to avoid such issues in the future. > > Another is that Bitcoin Core itself has a policy of not pushing > updates; the idea is that the user should consciously elect to update > to a newer version, because there may be consensus changes that the > user does not agree with. Using an unanchored `bitcoin-core` would > break this policy and make Guix provide always the latest available. > Of course, it is possible to use inferiors and so on. > > Finally, 0.21.1 is intended to include consensus policy changes on the > activation of the new Taproot feature. Whatever is deployed in 0.21.1 > may or may not be agreed to by the specific user, thus `bitcoin-core` > should ideally not be updated automatically to 0.21.1. > > Bitcoin Core makes an effort to maintain older major versions in order > to allow users to avoid particular changes in later major versions > they do not agree with. Ok, I've found https://bitcoincore.org/en/lifecycle/#schedule now which makes me feel a little better at keeping older versions around, as there are dates from the upstream project which help signal when removing versions from Guix might be good. >> The second thing is, I wouldn't immediately jump to the >> (make-... pattern, and I would instead use package inheritance. See the >> ruby packages for example [1]. >> >> 1: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/ruby.scm#n95 >> >> Package inheritance makes it simpler to make changes to individual >> versions, and avoids the complexity of introducing a procedure. >> >> Does that all make sense? > > Okay, thank you. On this point, are you OK with sending an updated patch? Thanks, Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmBRQmZfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9Xd/hQ/9G8s1ZYJsnZOm9uMAy7U0bnivB0PCgKIt 5PFE22ecVAD3I2dqwYOO81EZ3AXn6SxwNlX+cSj8PSzIeL4ECtFJz6WuLUcOEmKV qTdNhaP2SAypq12lDMdnig/YgSH252awz0/AWVSgQMw0jOOaeerc4K22IGebg625 fzqEJWDX1dT20Yyfuk8N798sFbGKZtQaT7Wt/i9/DhYz8Tw91QGJMlSC1bnna+dg H07+uKtqRczn4YDhON/7xUcr8+RDId6pUsyAgL3AgPgEhgqXkQG+NlXKce3ig5As /l640ERm8FTKdJDHMhMF9iYBVsUi/IqngHBZwH12W+MPgshblzUDV4dLTBEn4QC2 rIvLwJjEXpTYvYrHVr3NFgFkS3wGm24OVRfMzAYJ55S8ldQEt6ku9sGhqfRxRP0d 6pnlZKBMKADM5p7i1vDmKNBYUWL04DmSlrZ4Umf1EXm2AZ3SrsZ+vgrQNeqrumiq L49t5YjZwicieVCMXpr0ZkkGAh08LQrq84ayjBhLibXBpCHtV42Y6T8OC4tXrt7G k3HQ8m9fntaHnFS2bwyxF3eGmp8X6nFx29SJd8t0dsIZ7bwegzN0A29icYR7zTYy 8Z3cNmNadOSqqi2rCMOOY3wGZmSHE4/p6qKgztsezokMDXuIkeX+Yd1UyHQ553n7 YKpRzbKJc9Y= =G9aQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--