GNU bug report logs - #38546
Update Julia to 1.3.1.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #83 received at 38546 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Nicolò Balzarotti <anothersms <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 38546 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#38546] [00/11] Update Julia, Fix precompilation, add HTTP.jl
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 10:22:14 +0100

Hi Nicolò,

Cool that you figured out a source of non-reproducibility.


On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 14:45, Nicolò Balzarotti <anothersms <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, I forgot to send the dsfmt patch.  Also, julia's
> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH patch was named differently. I've fixed this in theattached patches.  You need to apply Add-dsfmt.patch, Update-to-1.3.1
> and then julia-use-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH.

This patch 'julia-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH-mtime.patch' is the one you
mentioned here [#], right?

Could you send it as an upstream PR?

[#] https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34115#issuecomment-568171025


> About reproducibility: if I'm not wrong, sys.so contains Base library
> precompiled ([1]).  Precompilation is still non deterministic (here's
> [2] an issue on github). Something I did to check precompilation:

I am not sure to well understand the source of non-determinism.

Does the patch about SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH fix the issue of [1] and [2]?
Or is it something else?


> I could not get the same results twice (also, size differs).  I'll work
> on this on some spare time (for example, there are other places where
> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH can be used, but this [3] is a problem I need to
> solve first).

Is the problem [3] not solved by 'julia-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH-mtime.patch'?



> Maybe 1.3.1 (when reviewed) can be merged, since we have
> the same problem with julia 1.1, but we can wait for the
> source-date-epoch and julia-xyz patches until we solve this.

My opinion is: if a patch is floating around to fix the
source-date-epoch issue, let try to push it upstream. If it is
rejected, let talk later if Guix will include it or not. And in the
meantime, I will try to review the 1.3.1 because yes I agree that it
should be included even if we know it is not reproducible -- the
package Guitarix [@] is updated and not reproducible neither.

[@] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=21803


Thank you for working on this.


All the best,
simon


> [1] https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/devdocs/sysimg/
> [2] https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/25900
> [3] https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34115

Previous Next

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