GNU bug report logs - #39575
guix time-machine fails when a tarball was modified in-place

Previous Next

Full log

Message #65 received at 39575 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
Cc: 39575 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#39575: guix time-machine fails when a tarball was modified
 in-place
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2020 09:47:41 +0100

Hi,

On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 21:01, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr> wrote:

> Janneke 写道：
> > https://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20190406T212022Z/pool/main/h/harfbuzz/harfbuzz_2.4.0.orig.tar.bz2
>
> This is a wonderful resource!  Thank you, Janneke (and Debian)!
>
> zimoun 写道：
> > Cool!
> > But how do you determine the "date", i.e., this reference
> > '20190406T212022Z' ?
>
> You'd take the timestamp immediately preceding your desired (Guix)
> commit's date, or something like that.  The fact that git commit
> dates aren't linear shouldn't hurt here.

You assume that Debian packs packages as fast as Guix, I mean on the
same schedule which is a strong assumption IMHO.
For example, if it was the contrary and the "new" release of harfbuzz
2.4.0 were missing, then would Debian be helpful?


> Also, this doesn't seem to be a supported service yet[0]:
>
>   “This is an implementation for a possible snapshot.debian.org
>   service.
>    It's not yet finished, it's more a prototype/proof of concept
>    to show
>    and learn what we want and can provide.  So far it seems to
>    actually work.”
>
> Still really cool,

Yes, still cool! :-)


Thanks,
simon

Previous Next

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