GNU bug report logs -
#43160
linux-libre: compare guix-generated sources against upstream releases
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Thu, 27 Jul 2023 12:18:49 -0400
with message-id <873519z5sm.fsf_-_ <at> gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#43160: linux-libre: compare guix-generated sources against upstream releases
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #43160,
regarding linux-libre: compare guix-generated sources against upstream releases
to be marked as done.
(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)
--
43160: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=43160
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
Successfully tested with all of the linux-libre versions we carry in Guix:
4.4.234, 4.9.234, 4.14.195, 4.19.142, 5.4.61 and 5.8.5.
* gnu/packages/linux.scm (make-linux-libre-source): Replace python-2 by
python-wrapper.
---
gnu/packages/linux.scm | 6 +-----
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/linux.scm b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
index d3365e7a4b..e9bfca25af 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/linux.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/linux.scm
@@ -296,11 +296,7 @@ corresponding UPSTREAM-SOURCE (an origin), using the given DEBLOB-SCRIPTS."
#+(canonical-package bzip2)
#+(canonical-package gzip)
#+(canonical-package tar)
- ;; The comments in the 'deblob-check' script
- ;; claim that it supports Python 2 and 3, but
- ;; in fact it fails when run in Python 3 as
- ;; of version 5.1.3.
- #+python-2))
+ #+python-wrapper))
(with-directory-excursion "/tmp/bin"
--
2.27.0
[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org> writes:
> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I was hoping this latest modified patch would meet both our goals
>> (strictly verified for the usual case, with an option to switch to
>> manual verification of the kernel sources for the exceptional security
>> quick releases).
>>
>> Sorry to have worn you out on this. I'll leave 2 weeks for the issue to
>> settle, hoping you might reconsider.
>
> I'm sorry for not following up on this sooner. My opinion on this issue
> has not changed, but I've run out of energy to continue arguing about
> it, and anyway it's probably more important to make the Linux-libre
> developers happy. Do as you think best, and I'll make adjustments on my
> private branch as needed.
I think there's still value in this series, but due to the already high
build requirements of running the verification script, I don't think
adding more to it is a good idea.
A better idea will be to build straight from the Git Linux-libre
repository, which will lighten the load to build these kernels while
simplifying things a bit.
Closing for now.
--
Thanks,
Maxim
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 27 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.