From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#36747: Official MesCC bootstrap binaries differ from my locally built ones Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:42:25 -0400 Message-ID: <8736i5a7mb.fsf@netris.org> References: <875znwcoo9.fsf@netris.org> <87ef2j1pgt.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftmy51kk.fsf@netris.org> <87muh6sib4.fsf@gnu.org> <877e8a79mz.fsf@netris.org> <87pnm2ufv1.fsf@gnu.org> <87lfwpqpb7.fsf@netris.org> <875znt2hlc.fsf@gnu.org> <87zhke97xj.fsf@netris.org> <87h86mdaex.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55894) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hxQWN-0007bZ-3w for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:43:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hxQWL-00058L-QM for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:43:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:38796) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hxQWL-00058G-NI for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 02:43:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87h86mdaex.fsf@gnu.org> (Jan Nieuwenhuizen's message of "Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:01:58 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Cc: 36747@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Janneke, Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > Mark H Weaver writes: > >> It seems to me that the best way to accomplish this is to backport the >> new '%bootstrap-tarballs' from 'wip-cu-binaries' to the 'master' branch. > > I called that `wip-binaries', @master from three weeks ago. Thank you, that was a good start. I found that some additional patches were needed to match the bootstrap binaries that 'core-updates' is currently based on. I ended up deleting and repushing a revised 'wip-binaries' to Savannah. It includes slightly modified versions of the two commits you had included, as well as some additional cherry-picked commits of yours to update mescc-tools and add linux-libre-headers-bootstrap-tarball, and a few of my own. I built the new bootstrap tarballs at the new 'wip-binaries', commit c67becb31c30a5cd7685f166970ac4793e3a34a9, and here's what I got: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- mhw@jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ git describe v1.0.1-2404-gc67becb31c mhw@jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ ./pre-inst-env guix build --system=i686-linux bootstrap-tarballs /gnu/store/bg086i2qw1fn2jgbd15d9v91hyjrjsb2-bootstrap-tarballs-0 mhw@jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ cd /gnu/store/bg086i2qw1fn2jgbd15d9v91hyjrjsb2-bootstrap-tarballs-0 mhw@jojen /gnu/store/bg086i2qw1fn2jgbd15d9v91hyjrjsb2-bootstrap-tarballs-0$ sha256sum * 3e50c070a100b6bcf84c4bf5c868f9cd0a9fd1570f5d82fbfb78f8411959091b guile-static-stripped-2.2.4-i686-linux.tar.xz 1acd8f83e27d2fac311a5ca78e9bf11a9a1638b82469870d5c854c4e7afaa26a linux-libre-headers-stripped-4.14.67-i686-linux.tar.xz 021543d9bb6af55f39e68d69692e3cb74646ced2cad0bb9ac0047ef81e9d7330 mescc-tools-static-stripped-0.5.2-0.bb062b0-i686-linux.tar.xz fb32090071b39fc804fb9a7fba96f0bc5eb844a0efd268fb24c42e6bfa959de0 mes-minimal-stripped-0.19-i686-linux.tar.xz c80cdd17b0a24eebdd75570ff72c4ec06e129bd702ac008186b57f6301c448e7 static-binaries-0-i686-linux.tar.xz --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- All of these match what you posted here earlier except for guile-static-stripped-2.2.4. In my final commit to 'wip-binaries' I disabled the parallel build in guile-static, which I hope might make that build deterministic. Can you try "guix build --system=i686-linux bootstrap-tarballs" at the new 'wip-binaries' branch and see if you get the same results? Also, I have a question: One of the changes I made to 'wip-binaries' was to update mescc-tools to 0.5.2-0.bb062b0, to match the %bootstrap-mescc-tools that's currently being used in 'core-updates'. However, I noticed that you have also apparently built the official release of mescc-tools-0.5.2, which is on your site: http://lilypond.org/janneke/guix/20190722/mescc-tools-static-stripped-0.5.2-i686-linux.tar.xz and that this tarball is identical to the build output of the later git commit: mescc-tools-static-stripped-0.5.2-0.bb062b0-i686-linux.tar.xz. With this in mind, could we just use 0.5.2? What changed between 0.5.2 and 0.5.2-0.bb062b0, and what was the rationale for updating to bb062b0? Here's the relevant commit: commit 7cbf6f1ca268a7a179d715aaba2a451a8886ab44 Author: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Date: Fri Oct 12 08:19:53 2018 +0200 gnu: mescc-tools: Update to 0.5.2-0.bb062b0d. * gnu/packages/mes.scm (mescc-tools): Update to 0.5.2-0.bb062b0d. mescc * gnu/packages/commencement.scm (mescc-tools-boot): Stay at 0.5.2 Anyway, thanks for all of your work on this. Best, Mark