From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99?= is back!
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 23:01:11 +0200
Message-ID: <87ziacvmqw.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <878ti3uzaz.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20170829084453.GJ1618@macbook42.flashner.co.il>
	<20170830093016.GP1618@macbook42.flashner.co.il>
	<87fuc8lvm5.fsf@fastmail.com>
	<20170830201607.GB2353@macbook42.flashner.co.il>
	<87a82glrlc.fsf@fastmail.com> <87y3pzokzh.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87tw0nk8oq.fsf@fastmail.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]:47720)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1doFXa-0003KD-VI
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2017 17:01:23 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1doFXW-0003Gd-BP
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2017 17:01:19 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87tw0nk8oq.fsf@fastmail.com> (Marius Bakke's message of "Thu, 31
	Aug 2017 18:23:33 +0200")
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: Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Hey Marius,

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> skribis:

> However I tried cherry-picking the two commits and there was only one
> trivial conflict in gcc/c-family/c-common.h (apart from ChangeLog
> updates, which were omitted).  Patch attached and building!

Woohoo!

> I also prefer going through GCC 6 before 7.  Let's go for it, assuming
> this patch works.
>
> From 329e016e35c51426ccf30aa2335bfd3ef12678a6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 18:13:08 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: gcc@6: Respect SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH in __DATE__ and
>  __TIME__ macros.
>
> * gnu/packages/patches/gcc-6-source-date-epoch-1.patch,
> gnu/packages/patches/gcc-6-source-date-epoch-2.patch: New files.
> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Register them.
> * gnu/packages/gcc.scm (gcc-6)[source]: Use them.

Looks OK to me for your favorite branch!  (Could be both =E2=80=98master=E2=
=80=99 and
=E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 after all.)

For the switch to GCC 6 in =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99, you can get insp=
iration from
commit b810a85019ab3c4ee1f889d0751b8eb06157dadc, and then do something
like =E2=80=9Cguix build sed=E2=80=9D for testing.

Ludo=E2=80=99.