From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51754) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iuCE3-0004u9-HO for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 04:23:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iuCE2-0005LI-Av for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 04:23:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:43026) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iuCE2-0005L5-7E for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 04:23:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iuCE2-0001Tg-4C for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 04:23:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#38546] [00/11] Update Julia, Fix precompilation, add HTTP.jl Resent-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87v9qpvbyr.fsf@guixSD.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87wo9ouaq5.fsf@guixSD.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87d0bcly8f.fsf@guixSD.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> In-Reply-To: <87d0bcly8f.fsf@guixSD.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> From: zimoun Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 10:22:14 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Nicol=C3=B2?= Balzarotti Cc: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 38546@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Nicol=C3=B2, Cool that you figured out a source of non-reproducibility. On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 14:45, Nicol=C3=B2 Balzarotti = wrote: > Sorry, I forgot to send the dsfmt patch. Also, julia's > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH patch was named differently. I've fixed this in theatta= ched patches. You need to apply Add-dsfmt.patch, Update-to-1.3.1 > and then julia-use-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. This patch 'julia-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH-mtime.patch' is the one you mentioned here [#], right? Could you send it as an upstream PR? [#] https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34115#issuecomment-568171025 > About reproducibility: if I'm not wrong, sys.so contains Base library > precompiled ([1]). Precompilation is still non deterministic (here's > [2] an issue on github). Something I did to check precompilation: I am not sure to well understand the source of non-determinism. Does the patch about SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH fix the issue of [1] and [2]? Or is it something else? > I could not get the same results twice (also, size differs). I'll work > on this on some spare time (for example, there are other places where > SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH can be used, but this [3] is a problem I need to > solve first). Is the problem [3] not solved by 'julia-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH-mtime.patch'? > Maybe 1.3.1 (when reviewed) can be merged, since we have > the same problem with julia 1.1, but we can wait for the > source-date-epoch and julia-xyz patches until we solve this. My opinion is: if a patch is floating around to fix the source-date-epoch issue, let try to push it upstream. If it is rejected, let talk later if Guix will include it or not. And in the meantime, I will try to review the 1.3.1 because yes I agree that it should be included even if we know it is not reproducible -- the package Guitarix [@] is updated and not reproducible neither. [@] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D21803 Thank you for working on this. All the best, simon > [1] https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/sysimg/ > [2] https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/25900 > [3] https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34115