GNU bug report logs -
#42162
gforge.inria.fr to be taken off-line in Dec. 2020
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 18:07:16 +0200
Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes <at> inria.fr> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>
> > Euh, I do not understand. From bug#43442 [1] on Wed, 16 Sep 2020,
> > Scotch was not missing. And from [2] neither.
> >
> > Nah, the hole is the (double) update (from 6.0.6 to 6.1.0 then
> > 6.1.1) without manually taking care of this bug report; by
> > switching from url-fetch to git-fetch for instance. Somehow, it
> > was bounded to happen because we lack automatic tools despite the
> > fact they are there.
> >
> > Indeed, hard to believe. :-)
>
> I guess, in our mind, the problem was fixed long ago. :-)
>
> > As I am asking in this thread [3], the Guix project has the
> > ressource, storage speaking, to archive these tarballs -- waiting a
> > robust long-term automatic system. But we (the Guix projet) cannot
> > because we duplicate the effort on keeping twice all the build
> > outputs. Somehow, between Berlin and Bordeaux, coherent policies
> > for conservancy are missing. IMHO.
>
> So I think we’re lucky that we can try different solutions at once.
>
> The best solution is the one that won’t rely solely on the Guix
> project: SWH + Disarchive. We’re getting there!
>
> The second-best solution is to improve our tooling so we can actually
> keep source code in a more controlled way. That’s what I had in mind
> with <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/source>. We have storage space
> for that on berlin, but it’s not infinite.
>
> Another approach is to use ‘git-fetch’ more, at least for
> non-Autotools packages (that’s the case for Scotch, for instance.)
Out of curiosity, why only non-autotools?
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 287 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.