From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: Generated patches change over time
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 22:37:38 +0100
Message-ID: <87r2f1q671.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20181124183051.23027.37347@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
	<20181124183052.9A76B209A2@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
	<87h8g5unug.fsf@gnu.org> <87pnuskfmg.fsf@netris.org>
	<87h8g15uqb.fsf_-_@gnu.org>
	<D151A49F-1A10-4C4F-B2C1-4DD27385D077@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52665)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1gTCxW-0006T4-UL
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 16:37:55 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1gTCxW-0008Gs-6U
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 16:37:54 -0500
In-Reply-To: <D151A49F-1A10-4C4F-B2C1-4DD27385D077@gmail.com> (Maxim
	Cournoyer's message of "Thu, 29 Nov 2018 14:48:37 +0000")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Hello,

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:

>>> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
>
>>Lesson learned: we should not rely at all on generated patches because
>>they are bound to change frequently (version string at the end, length
>>of commit hash prefixes, etc.)  It=E2=80=99s probably worse than tarballs
>>generated by Git hosting services.
>>
>>So we should probably work towards using local copies of patches,
>>unless
>>we find that the generated patches do not include any variable bits.
>>
>
> Maybe we could pass the patches through some sanitizer to strip any metad=
ata? I guess the content itself shouldn't change?

We can=E2=80=99t really do that, or the downloads would no longer be
fixed-output derivations and thus we wouldn=E2=80=99t be solving the proble=
m.

Ludo=E2=80=99.