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 YBKlKTB1UWAIDgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 03:19:12 +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 6I5tJTB1UWAeDQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 03:19:12 +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 5794926DAB for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:19:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:33422 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMMiF-0004Kb-Ir for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:19:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:36518) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMMi6-0004KS-6f for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:19:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58287) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lMMi5-00076G-Ve for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:19:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lMMi5-00043u-QF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:19:01 -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: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 03:19:01 +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: Christopher Baines Cc: "46266@debbugs.gnu.org" <46266@debbugs.gnu.org> Received: via spool by 46266-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46266.161595110515567 (code B ref 46266); Wed, 17 Mar 2021 03:19:01 +0000 Received: (at 46266) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Mar 2021 03:18:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41600 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lMMhV-000431-75 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:18:25 -0400 Received: from mail-40138.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.138]:41160) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lMMhS-00042m-IV for 46266@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 23:18:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 03:18:11 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1615951095; bh=P62mDXpO0CSPgZPPudEaM3/jpP/2ZrffRrtlBYTEbAk=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CaDwipcNgvvDmBMtPi1WPyXvalvaq+CMQjKK2taAESTJCraaknwW2Z8jtxchdFz/G gdyQ9tGBKidoCCbKbC00mnNs4M2sm9K071yn0fdQR8Mvsl+a3pG3XJ13zkSe9rofJf Zqqba2cjqcHP/Khi5zyp/qswf7n4THxP0xsyOd6I= Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <878s6mekd5.fsf@cbaines.net> References: <877dmxltia.fsf@cbaines.net> <878s6mekd5.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=1615951152; 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=P62mDXpO0CSPgZPPudEaM3/jpP/2ZrffRrtlBYTEbAk=; b=l58SJztb3X3iIJbkJ04gKQNbTZWKhtdU/5fRtQVCU7wO1abPuDAXZXViB7g3iBQCdW3HqJ pZWfIFwBYnvLZ2xh2jKU9MmLs3bbdiURGGQLCjIwOAdh18eAVxBxO4zsY3jY68FfxXOXLS iFn8pI7X1yC7ZdMVS0SgZSM2IZ+Lin7kftewstNq61Ol+9i0DV8KI3YAJ2B58ubj9NgBss m6R/jUKsXQxTwXYeI8ldJUn9aCN3t+5JlBRzVnOKPsGa+0CWnp78Y+RRA+Hx9FO3k+Ffox LhjON+MJf0oOjoW3v6Sp+bXYHKteC0ApIoPg1fvmIDDb9a8V40EIfSeSU1V9Wg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1615951152; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=FaVbP6ZekauHwOzX53xH8cM45+09GZT2NCj+sj7FH29YH0tPQqZ3OtUu/5MpWg1g8JV0bw sZrkGYKwMueYwV4dYozEJDYULa3O9KQkMRHanvP1tk8fhb1tIObAGvPA7PkijfafgY+g0S i79B5Epw9IlHaREkzQ5Ih2n2p3q2YzT3PZQgxAAeLpYFmsMhj1cXrIltFVp0hY7bs4HFh+ dDZtVjWMjfCMIZKGs+cSBhSRByG2I+ThIbe8ZiY4nNKEDvCta0GfgPfDalv7cKG1yjN00U efGy+rvDT/jl8dpmLZe/UoZgjeurpmjPUXr3jAfrczevf4KrHsZ+LL0O00uX0Q== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=protonmail.com header.s=protonmail header.b=CaDwipcN; 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=CaDwipcN; 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: 5794926DAB X-Spam-Score: -2.90 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: 7P3eI7jWmzvX Good morning Christopher, > ZmnSCPxj ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com 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-0.2= 0` > > > > and `bitcoin-core-0.21` packages. Due to RPC changes, it is possibl= e > > > > 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 wo= uld > > > be good to specifically note why specific older versions are useful t= o > > > keep. I'm saying that because it's useful to know when an older versi= on > > > 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 foundhttps://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. Okay, I will add a comment linking to this as well in the patch. > > > > The second thing is, I wouldn't immediately jump to the > > > (make-... pattern, and I would instead use package inheritance. See t= he > > > 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? Yes, please give me a few days or weeks. Regards, ZmnSCPxj