Subject: Re: Linux-libre 5.8 and beyond

From: Mark H Weaver <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 23:46:34 -0400

Hi Leo,

Leo Famulari <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 09, 2020 at 06:17:48PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> If the file name and hash matches a previously downloaded file in your
>> store, the guix daemon uses that one and skips the download, regardless
>> of the URL.  That's why no error was reported.  There's no version
>> number in the file name of the 'deblob-check' file.
>
> We should try to make these files include the version number to avoid
> this kind of mistake in the future.

That's a good idea.  In a later message you posted a proposed patch:

> From e9ca6405e351baf4356a7300aa252d25056a322c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Leo Famulari <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 12:40:49 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Use a descriptive file-name for linux-libre
>  'deblob-check' scripts.
> 
> Fixes <https://bugs.gnu.org/42789>.
> 
> * gnu/packages/linux.scm (linux-libre-deblob-scripts): Use file-name for
> the deblob-check script.
> ---
>  gnu/packages/linux.scm | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/linux.scm b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> index a2d6d384ee..9d553e7772 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
> @@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ defconfig.  Return the appropriate make target if applicable, otherwise return
>            (uri (string-append "https://linux-libre.fsfla.org"
>                                "/pub/linux-libre/releases/" version "-gnu/"
>                                "deblob-check"))
> +          (file-name (string-append "linux-libre-" version "-deblob-check"))
>            (sha256 deblob-check-hash))))
>  
>  (define deblob-scripts-5.8

If we're going to prefix "linux-libre-" to the name, which I agree is a
good idea, maybe we should add the same prefix to the other 'deblob'
script, for consistency.  Also for consistency, I think the version
number should be at the end, after "deblob-check", as is the case for
the other deblob script.

There's also the question of whether the micro version number should be
included in the file name.  In practice, these deblob scripts almost
never change from one micro version to the next.  Also, I suspect
(although I've not yet confirmed it) that these deblob scripts likely
work for older kernels in the same stable series.

For those reasons, at present the micro version number appears only in
the URLs, and not in either the file names or in the version number as
recorded in the first element of the triplet returned by
'linux-libre-deblob-scripts'.  I'd personally be inclined to keep it
that way, although I don't feel strongly about it.

What do you think?

      Thanks,
        Mark