Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: >> I don’t think we explicitly discussed it, but my assumption is that >> we’re delaying merging of ‘core-updates’ into ‘master’ until >> ‘core-updates-next’ becomes ‘core-updates’. Is this what you had in >> mind? (I’m asking because ‘core-updates’ was almost entirely built >> IIRC.) > > My preference would be to merge 'core-updates-next' into 'core-updates', > or equivalently, to apply the following 3 commits to 'core-updates': > > commit d4bc93abe59e8ffcb8304050c05e727fe0230651 > Author: Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> > Date: Thu Aug 15 15:39:30 2019 -0400 > > gnu: bootstrap: Update to the 20190815 bootstrap binaries. > > * gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm (%bootstrap-linux-libre-headers): Update the > download URL. > (%bootstrap-mescc-tools, %bootstrap-mes): Update the download URL and hash. > > commit 82eaac49ac983f28768d6623d802f41cbd7f779b > Author: Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> > Date: Thu Aug 15 16:44:36 2019 -0400 > > gnu: bash: Unconditionally configure PGRP_PIPE for *-linux systems. > > * gnu/packages/patches/bash-linux-pgrp-pipe.patch: New file. > * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it. > * gnu/packages/bash.scm (bash)[source]: Add the patch. > > commit 47fcdfac44c5bf236299679781133468be6f0207 > Author: Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> > Date: Thu Aug 22 11:47:27 2019 +0200 > > gnu: bootstrap: Add ftp.gnu.org to '%bootstrap-base-urls'. > > * gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm (%bootstrap-base-urls): Add > ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guix/bootstrap. > > These commits are the only difference between 'core-updates' and > 'core-updates-next'. OK. The Bash change means we’re rebuilding from scratch on architectures, not just x86. So I’ll probably ungraft my Ghostscript fix (466ff55c72959ba1499ce3ec69f534b3038eb30b) while we’re at it. > I'm confident that this will make no difference to the set of packages > that build successfully, modulo non-determistic build failures. The > only additional time it should require is the time needed for Berlin to > rebuild the branch. > > Otherwise, 'core-updates-next' seems to be in good shape, and possibly > almost ready to merge into 'master'. I admit that this assessment is > based solely on the fact that I'm currently using it on my own machine, > and it works well. Without Hydra's interface for comparing evaluations, > I'm mostly blind to the status of the branch beyond of the set of > packages I use myself. I find that ‘guix weather -c’ gives a rather good overview of the situation, though it’s not equivalent to comparing with another evaluation. > In my opinion, 'core-updates' in its current form should never be merged > into 'master', because it's built upon non-deterministic bootstrap > tarballs that cannot be independently verified. > > What do you think? That sounds good to me. I think we should start real soon, then. Marius? >> Also, what’s the next step for ‘wip-binaries’? > > Good question! First, I think we should tag it with a name that > indicates that it was used to build the 20190815 bootstrap binaries. > > Optionally, I would advocate merging 'wip-binaries' into 'master'. Fine with me! Could you take care of tagging and merging? Thanks, Ludo’.
