GNU bug report logs - #36747
Official MesCC bootstrap binaries differ from my locally built ones

Previous Next

Full log

Message #121 received at 36747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
Cc: 36747 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#36747: Official MesCC bootstrap binaries differ from my
 locally built ones
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 12:09:23 +0200

Hello,

Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org> skribis:
>>
>>> You can reproduce them with the following command from a git checkout at
>>> commit 9e6256ba0f32ab12d61c914a3fed879dac881762, which is the tip of the
>>> 'wip-binaries' branch, based on recent 'master':
>>>
>>>   ./pre-inst-env guix build --system=i686-linux bootstrap-tarballs
>>>
>>> mhw <at> jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ git describe
>>> v1.0.1-2479-g9e6256ba0f
>>> mhw <at> jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ ./pre-inst-env guix build --system=i686-linux bootstrap-tarballs
>>> /gnu/store/rdwyr8mh7dvhfkb5g4cws6q40hp23rbi-bootstrap-tarballs-0
>>> mhw <at> jojen ~/guix-wip-binaries$ cd /gnu/store/rdwyr8mh7dvhfkb5g4cws6q40hp23rbi-bootstrap-tarballs-0
>>> mhw <at> jojen /gnu/store/rdwyr8mh7dvhfkb5g4cws6q40hp23rbi-bootstrap-tarballs-0$ sha256sum *
>>> 3e50c070a100b6bcf84c4bf5c868f9cd0a9fd1570f5d82fbfb78f8411959091b  guile-static-stripped-2.2.4-i686-linux.tar.xz
>>> 1acd8f83e27d2fac311a5ca78e9bf11a9a1638b82469870d5c854c4e7afaa26a  linux-libre-headers-stripped-4.14.67-i686-linux.tar.xz
>>> 021543d9bb6af55f39e68d69692e3cb74646ced2cad0bb9ac0047ef81e9d7330  mescc-tools-static-stripped-0.5.2-i686-linux.tar.xz
>>> fb32090071b39fc804fb9a7fba96f0bc5eb844a0efd268fb24c42e6bfa959de0  mes-minimal-stripped-0.19-i686-linux.tar.xz
>>> c80cdd17b0a24eebdd75570ff72c4ec06e129bd702ac008186b57f6301c448e7  static-binaries-0-i686-linux.tar.xz
>>>
>>> Do you get the same results?
>>
>> I built it on bayfront and got the exact same result:
>
> I'm glad to hear it!  Marius and Janneke got these exact results as
> well, albeit at a different commit which should be equivalent.

Great.

>> (I’m actually surprised Guile is 100% reproducible; ISTR there were
>> still issues with gensyms in .go files, but maybe I’m wrong.)
>
> It's apparently not reproducible unless built sequentially.  I did some
> preliminary investigation, and my guess is that the gensyms produced by
> Guile's compiler sometimes depends on whether dependent modules were
> previously compiled or not.

I see.

>> So, green light, right?
>
> Yes!
>
>>> To match what 'core-updates-next' expects, it would be good to upload
>>> the files above, along with digital signatures, to the following new
>>> directory:
>>>
>>>   https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/bootstrap/i686-linux/20190815/
>>
>> Unless you disagree, I’ll upload these to ftp.gnu.org (not
>> alpha.gnu.org, but same directory as you wrote) tomorrow.
>
> That's fine, although I guess %bootstrap-base-urls will need to be
> extended to include the new base URL.

Uploaded to
<https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guix/bootstrap/i686-linux/20190815/>.  I
adjusted ‘%bootstrap-base-urls’ and the branch is now being evaluated
for real:

  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/core-updates-next

Thanks everyone for verifying and “fixing” these bootstrap binaries, and
apologies for delaying the process!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.