From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53658) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4vk3-0006CV-A8 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:19:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4vk0-0007QB-5O for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:19:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:40067) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e4vjz-0007Pz-Ui for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:19:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e4vjx-0000ZF-VZ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:19:03 -0400 Subject: [bug#27888] [PATCH 01/18] gnu: python@3: Update to 3.6.2. Resent-Message-ID: References: <20170731200735.28019-1-mbakke@fastmail.com> <20170731230700.GB11946@jasmine.lan> <87zibkw2mt.fsf@fastmail.com> From: Ricardo Wurmus In-reply-to: <87zibkw2mt.fsf@fastmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 23:17:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <874lqw40l8.fsf@elephly.net> 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: Marius Bakke Cc: 27888@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Marius and Leo, > Leo Famulari writes: > >> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:07:18PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: >>> * gnu/packages/patches/python-3.5-fix-tests.patch: Rename to ... >>> * gnu/packages/patches/python-3-fix-tests.patch: ... this. Adjust and d= isable >>> more tests. >>> * gnu/packages/patches/python-3.5-getentropy-on-old-kernels.patch: Dele= te file. >> >> I'm curious, do you know if they handled this issue upstream in a >> reliable way, or is getentropy() simply unused in Python 3.6? > > The getentropy fix for 3.5 was a port of "random.c" from 3.6 + the fix % > 3.5 specific behaviour. Since 3.6.2 was just released it should have > it. Most hunks are there, but didn't verify all. > >> Also, do you have any idea about the state of the bytecode timestamp >> issue, which is related to the problem with the bytecode cache? I can >> work on that on python-updates when you push it. > > Yes. You might have seen this: > > https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/25916 > > NixOS patches the interpreter to unconditionally set bytecode timestamps > to epoch 1. Now I also found this: > > https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/296 > > So I think we only need that patch and to set PYTHONHASHSEED to some > deterministic value in python-build-system.=20 > > I can give it a go next weekend if you're busy, but more than happy to > share the workload :-) I hope you don=E2=80=99t mind me asking: is there any progress here? Anyth= ing blocking that I could help with? --=20 Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net