From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: 1.1.0rc1 available for test!
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2020 12:29:49 +0200
Message-ID: <87sghbws4i.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87369c1ixm.fsf@gnu.org> <871row58nk.fsf@yucca>
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-mx.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54991)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1jMqv2-0007bi-LL
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Apr 2020 06:29:53 -0400
In-Reply-To: <871row58nk.fsf@yucca> (Vagrant Cascadian's message of "Thu, 09
 Apr 2020 20:20:15 -0700")
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: <https://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-mx.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel"
 <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
To: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Hi Vagrant,

Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:

> On 2020-04-09, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote:
>> Hello Guix!
>>
>> I=E2=80=99ve run =E2=80=9Cmake release=E2=80=9D from the new =E2=80=98ve=
rsion-1.1.0=E2=80=99 branch and uploaded
>> the result:
>>
>>   https://web.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/software/guix/1.1.0rc1
>
> The only tarball I see there is:
>
>   https://web.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/software/guix/1.1.0rc1/guix-1.0.1.13450-01=
d5f2.tar.gz
>
> Which does not correspond to the commit from 01d5f2 (which happens to be
> a few hundred commits behind master)...=20

The machinery picked up a stale commit ID.  Fixed in
08b14ab20ebe181690df6210a0b3f95bad494af5.

> Which commit was it actually built with? I know it's not a release, per
> se, but git tags would be *really* helpful even for release candidates...

The source tarball corresponds to
98148830c0afb9adc8acf150afc48f09aae42ac1 on =E2=80=98version-1.1.0=E2=80=99=
.  I=E2=80=99ve added
a tag now.

However, =E2=80=9Cmake release=E2=80=9D creates two additional commits as i=
t updates the
=E2=80=98guix=E2=80=99 package, and I chose to not push them.

> When building my own local guix tarballs, I found it disturbingly easy
> to get the wrong version information into the tarball .version and
> .tarball-version and consequently the resulting tarball...

Agreed, sorry for the confusion.

> I notice gnu/services/linux.scm is also missing in some of my locally
> built git snapshot tarballs, so there appears to be something broken in
> the tarball generation process.

I see you fixed it in the meantime.

Thanks for reporting these issues!

Ludo=E2=80=99.