From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id jyzMC+kdUGD0MgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 02:54:33 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id UDcXB+kdUGAnOAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 02:54:33 +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 CB744113D2 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 03:54:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:60118 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lLzqp-0004aY-Il for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 22:54:31 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44398) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lLzqj-0004aI-B8 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 22:54:25 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:54374) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lLzqj-0005Ae-3M for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 22:54:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lLzqh-00021t-Pw for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 22:54:23 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#46266] [PATCH] gnu: Update bitcoin-core to 0.21.0 Resent-From: ZmnSCPxj Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 02:54:22 +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: Christopher Baines Cc: "46266@debbugs.gnu.org" <46266@debbugs.gnu.org> Received: via spool by 46266-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46266.16158632467596 (code B ref 46266); Tue, 16 Mar 2021 02:54:22 +0000 Received: (at 46266) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Mar 2021 02:54:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37687 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lLzq8-0001vu-JX for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 22:54:02 -0400 Received: from mail-40135.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.135]:15571) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lLzpc-0001p1-R6 for 46266@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 22:53:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 02:53:08 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1615863189; bh=jF3uV5AASkBOg+maTCpmBLTnFs9mwjBBMPUOrPKsBao=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=MefTzB/xx8M7DWIfVJ5p80YUAFyDUVDRhJ6uAQKMRTCBd5m/NrJbC/XxmzkzpLO0P dSvX/UXD1Jal6CY+sdjox1S7OH05mhjrFPl5i8cG6KRpMkEQ6LnKrrLpnbgZp57tql Aa3DqIxdzfnf6+OFFWbT67c9MS11Hvvj19ONaXjo= Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <877dmxltia.fsf@cbaines.net> References: <877dmxltia.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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" Reply-to: ZmnSCPxj X-ACL-Warn: , ZmnSCPxj via Guix-patches From: ZmnSCPxj via Guix-patches via X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1615863272; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: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:dkim-signature; bh=jF3uV5AASkBOg+maTCpmBLTnFs9mwjBBMPUOrPKsBao=; b=ocVEPK18tNAoFCky3AvYXqEzRfbJbqviSjAAkv4gJvsmxJ8noGODeni/yxtRLf7erI8xFq HvzsQxL2r0mNJML9ykfnVkLGorUrPYq0cc2PCgchqAgnegK3W5nAWvMtfMCn2A2NvDcwL8 bu2XmdEMxQqc4+Bwn5WNu7+HP4IJoJ2CrZET+3rLzpcLgWVNV3DDKTDhoCEINcjTAIAfYo ja2dEb+RT6oL7vtO2YWTdoLVTsnvX5Ov0IQRw86nrOt04WuXIN09eci9v3vjLbrJzpOqKL 6cLOPcQIRa6+fSVGQmeD2+20qUIAJaetaL6ihV2sEfnqh8z/XXuBLkIFMavl5w== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1615863272; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=sd9g7qUFSBwmZRdKt2JkqxmLTxl8gRBVBsQ7UZTam3tOO9WcCeQlWpXCI78CotsxX3B02p eEmJ0lVNneYpiJB6WbPHJxkEr0cLfkoSAXj/9qe3VEV9F1DuWoUmyhfQ2bThHWO36eNSir 1e6aDAkLrzmHIobuRHB7YfN9JBtyrFaQ9Z0VRhF4HDo4ozGfjCTggiUi/+dCGfPny2Oyca 0I09DLO2UrdGkjNA+2lZdEz6KP+KufhqYSg814HerXCbP0Q4BsxPrj04N2zkvQMA41Egtx I8AU3El7InyxHuXTSC5mEEcEiT20ym9YPuEH5xHJiXKXJoAfMkLOjyhK+l2nKQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=protonmail.com header.s=protonmail header.b="MefTzB/x"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; 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: -2.90 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=protonmail.com header.s=protonmail header.b="MefTzB/x"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; 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: CB744113D2 X-Spam-Score: -2.90 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: B4a0ObSpOpl5 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 proble= ms in dependent software that used the older `allowhighfees` parameter. So I think it is a good policy in general to provide major versions for Bit= coin Core at least, to avoid such issues in the future. Another is that Bitcoin Core itself has a policy of not pushing updates; th= e idea is that the user should consciously elect to update to a newer versi= on, because there may be consensus changes that the user does not agree wit= h. Using an unanchored `bitcoin-core` would break this policy and make Guix pr= ovide 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 acti= vation 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 a= llow users to avoid particular changes in later major versions they do not = agree with. > 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. Regards, ZmnSCPxj