From unknown Thu Jun 19 14:05:10 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#62071 <62071@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#62071 <62071@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible Reply-To: bug#62071 <62071@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 21:05:10 +0000 retitle 62071 openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible reassign 62071 guix submitter 62071 Lars-Dominik Braun severity 62071 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 09 04:49:06 2023 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Mar 2023 09:49:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50920 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1paCtW-0007PN-Hv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 04:49:06 -0500 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:55388) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1paCtU-0007PF-Nw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 04:49:05 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1paCtU-0005GA-6A for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 04:49:04 -0500 Received: from mout-p-101.mailbox.org ([80.241.56.151]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_CHACHA20_POLY1305:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1paCtR-00029O-KY for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Mar 2023 04:49:03 -0500 Received: from smtp102.mailbox.org (smtp102.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::102]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-384) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-p-101.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4PXPX71KvRz9sTD for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:48:55 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6xq.net; s=MBO0001; t=1678355335; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding; bh=p45Z3FUQ3mAiceHpfgYkediA3F7A1prYqyUIWsl0YXk=; b=qn2yQ3DJfTGwEhO+F8v11RsTWbFT1qtB4wO9pLKYqatHpeeOT2yHgf6nIxofMIfj23JAxw tCAk7tsQE1NpGHdqD4IDc6sZisG0bMtJ0EcjR4Q3fNcFiseqq7GMf/nXJ+Yods0Gs2TlZ7 AJJdKJCME3GXd+emLz2HecdgTtXlKUTzfetwwq1kSpsZmag5d/yUtI2YDltL8MToXihdoA iQlnC3CJZJWzU7BFKte1iMChD7roenNTmSC7N27FaoWkWtZ6sFDkpcWwuKJ7F1Sdo4kdey /F1eHEOsTdsJt+OHC2iBIgUPDbmhjW/DWy6Fzgnvr7tbZqbnYr0AplQADd6i7A== Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:48:53 +0100 From: Lars-Dominik Braun To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Debbugs-Cc: julien@lepiller.eu X-Debbugs-Cc: bjoern.hoefling@bjoernhoefling.de X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4PXPX71KvRz9sTD Received-SPF: pass client-ip=80.241.56.151; envelope-from=lars@6xq.net; helo=mout-p-101.mailbox.org X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Hi, it looks like the (auto-generated) tarballs for openjdk@9 and openjdk@10 changed their hash, causing a hash mismatch via guix build -S openjdk@9 --no-substitutes --no-grafts I’m not sure why it uses these tarballs in the first place, since we have a hg-download. Lars From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Mar 11 18:06:59 2023 Received: (at 62071) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Mar 2023 23:06:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58798 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pb8Il-000395-LD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 18:06:59 -0500 Received: from m4s11.vlinux.de ([83.151.27.109]:43794 helo=bjoernhoefling.de) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pb8Ij-00038x-L0 for 62071@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 18:06:58 -0500 Received: from tangletp (p508aca60.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.138.202.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bjoernhoefling.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 93E573FCA6; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 00:06:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 00:06:55 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEjDtmZsaW5n?= To: Lars-Dominik Braun Subject: Re: bug#62071: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible Message-ID: <20230312000655.3f66d7fd@tangletp> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.0.0 (GTK+ 3.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/xhmjPHDXWHYECWg9+VUuv48"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62071 Cc: 62071@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --Sig_/xhmjPHDXWHYECWg9+VUuv48 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:48:53 +0100 Lars-Dominik Braun wrote: > Hi, >=20 > it looks like the (auto-generated) tarballs for openjdk@9 and > openjdk@10 changed their hash, causing a hash mismatch via >=20 > guix build -S openjdk@9 --no-substitutes --no-grafts =20 I can confirm this. I found the old versions of openjdk 9 and 10 on a server of mine. I will compare old/new tomorrow (oh, better say: later today). > I=E2=80=99m not sure why it uses these tarballs in the first place, since= we > have a hg-download. I don't know. Maybe there was no hg-download yet when we added OpenJDK9? Bj=C3=B6rn --Sig_/xhmjPHDXWHYECWg9+VUuv48 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EAREKAB0WIQQiGUP0np8nb5SZM4K/KGy2WT5f/QUCZA0JjwAKCRC/KGy2WT5f /cfuAJ9F262CVMXHFElH3XmSQv4sb7PDWQCgqV1qTDZOgcicr7O/gzQIcw9oGkw= =Dtbz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/xhmjPHDXWHYECWg9+VUuv48-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Mar 12 17:00:26 2023 Received: (at 62071) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Mar 2023 21:00:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33159 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pbSnq-0001aA-Dg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:00:26 -0400 Received: from m4s11.vlinux.de ([83.151.27.109]:43806 helo=bjoernhoefling.de) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pbSnn-0001a0-EN for 62071@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:00:25 -0400 Received: from tangletp (p57b52a32.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [87.181.42.50]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bjoernhoefling.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4AB783F954; Sun, 12 Mar 2023 22:00:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 22:00:21 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEjDtmZsaW5n?= To: Lars-Dominik Braun Subject: Re: bug#62071: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible Message-ID: <20230312220021.22bfff4f@tangletp> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.0.0 (GTK+ 3.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/xfzUt4E6HAV9YPnMWOGBbWv"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62071 Cc: 62071@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --Sig_/xfzUt4E6HAV9YPnMWOGBbWv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:48:53 +0100 Lars-Dominik Braun wrote: > Hi, >=20 > it looks like the (auto-generated) tarballs for openjdk@9 and > openjdk@10 changed their hash, causing a hash mismatch via >=20 > guix build -S openjdk@9 --no-substitutes --no-grafts >=20 > I=E2=80=99m not sure why it uses these tarballs in the first place, since= we > have a hg-download. I compared for JDK9 the two tarballs (old and new hash) and there is no difference in the content (according to diffoscope). Also, if I hg-clone the repository/tag (and add the .hg_archival.txt file), all three directory trees have the same hash value according to guix hash -rx Thus, it seams like their artifacts are not stable, as we saw it for autogenerated artifacts on github. I will check the same for JDK10 and will prepare a patch within the next two days. Bj=C3=B6rn --Sig_/xfzUt4E6HAV9YPnMWOGBbWv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EAREKAB0WIQQiGUP0np8nb5SZM4K/KGy2WT5f/QUCZA49ZQAKCRC/KGy2WT5f /ZPVAJwJBM3IhJAHQObQZUJlxg949Gd1TACeNDPnn+F00mB5ADw9uZ8bmWX9L9g= =+1IK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/xfzUt4E6HAV9YPnMWOGBbWv-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Mar 13 11:02:11 2023 Received: (at 62071) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Mar 2023 15:02:11 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35384 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pbjgh-0002Al-Ee for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:02:11 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f47.google.com ([209.85.221.47]:43995) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pbjgf-0002AI-6L for 62071@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 11:02:09 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f47.google.com with SMTP id l12so3339392wrm.10 for <62071@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 08:02:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678719723; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=uusJabdpQ7qYYSP4KzxiSoxzWDzafl13ar82+bN5iqQ=; b=h+1EoEzDGh2/hZh1IQHyJtFwsdGYkxZnB9aioUryIwbbja3ymgq28QhRhygVx3/h/j PyorR2ru/An6k+8NaaYSxR98XsKfnStN+dX9W0yhpY2FJ11oVg/mNPVuTUQ6v+fyjAGY 8Fls3ngOxYvq7XAEStmGgy7moypYzTl2FjZaxDvZZz013cxe1VrVTuXkeEma4TkSmQMr dAi3//BeSILdWqkBKa18135VEGc8614nROopDCM3/SCOfJW6z3s767AnGGsogzDV9Qqi iPkF5pU6R12mF0BPrdq45VqYlcG/E8PbY7d4yXjq1mDS84s+aclXBL1l4ALVZXODKpeJ KSuQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678719723; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uusJabdpQ7qYYSP4KzxiSoxzWDzafl13ar82+bN5iqQ=; b=DMPuqzh+/2DBuSNiclBRQya+2N110iO9UQUGGfI4yFoQ0mkFVDlbvWeI4rIvVRXUmf Q1T0UQnOvhyY9rM1lKVCyFn+NOvJQ2i9Z/GsEDs3P1l4m1/09R1QVAl3GvG+1nYntD5e WVjPUxXBQr346HuOESOBEdZTqu3PQnCk8j9cKOr+ei8efw8rc5y2QA+qLJcJrF+VfjmC hKSzIUdaWyqd7XX8rAZ9mX7dqrfey/1+PXx4VgyZdassxB2uHf0zebQGZ0xgMSdgDO7u mqZqCzbkvHh488MFaqbmEq1BmqFdKeXfk45k26DWJQFMvN3vNMmBjPCsMKV9UFVI+szv ZVLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKWeQavl74iYMd6hYyINDkf8fl01PwR6FoBsk6pMsep/ajKoA4DE PzvLU0mrt/kZIxwPKI2wJDFIaFGXrm4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8wRmBfGDKvSuxGJlb89gAgO6rxTNsN5DMHGugb64Kl56yJurokNdjOyoDD35rnWgwMpUiLWg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f084:0:b0:2c7:8a6f:5568 with SMTP id n4-20020adff084000000b002c78a6f5568mr7367429wro.3.1678719723076; Mon, 13 Mar 2023 08:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pfiuh07 ([193.48.40.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q12-20020adfcd8c000000b002ceaeb4b608sm4123596wrj.34.2023.03.13.08.02.02 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 13 Mar 2023 08:02:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Tournier To: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_H=C3=B6fling?= , Lars-Dominik Braun Subject: Re: bug#62071: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible In-Reply-To: <20230312220021.22bfff4f@tangletp> References: <20230312220021.22bfff4f@tangletp> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 14:50:51 +0100 Message-ID: <87o7owlpz8.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62071 Cc: 62071@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi, On dim., 12 mars 2023 at 22:00, Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling wrote: > I compared for JDK9 the two tarballs (old and new hash) and there is no > difference in the content (according to diffoscope). Also, if I > hg-clone the repository/tag (and add the .hg_archival.txt file), all > three directory trees have the same hash value according to guix hash > -rx So maybe it comes from some parameters of the compressor; maybe they changed their level. Well, I do not know how to check that. Maybe the best is to switch from url-fetch to hg-fetch. WDYT? Cheers, simon From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 16 05:12:15 2023 Received: (at 62071-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Mar 2023 09:12:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41179 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pcjeh-0004cV-5A for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2023 05:12:15 -0400 Received: from m4s11.vlinux.de ([83.151.27.109]:43850 helo=bjoernhoefling.de) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pcjef-0004cM-AL for 62071-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2023 05:12:13 -0400 Received: from tangletp (pd951ff3f.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [217.81.255.63]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bjoernhoefling.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBF933F954; Thu, 16 Mar 2023 10:12:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 10:12:12 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEjDtmZsaW5n?= To: Lars-Dominik Braun Subject: Re: bug#62071: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible Message-ID: <20230316101212.45619eec@tangletp> In-Reply-To: <20230312220021.22bfff4f@tangletp> References: <20230312220021.22bfff4f@tangletp> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.0.0 (GTK+ 3.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/UqsucH3upyijfIDW/qDg6RD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62071-done Cc: 62071-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.9 (/) --Sig_/UqsucH3upyijfIDW/qDg6RD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 22:00:21 +0100 Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling wrote: > On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:48:53 +0100 > Lars-Dominik Braun wrote: >=20 > > Hi, > >=20 > > it looks like the (auto-generated) tarballs for openjdk@9 and > > openjdk@10 changed their hash, causing a hash mismatch via > >=20 > > guix build -S openjdk@9 --no-substitutes --no-grafts > >=20 > > I=E2=80=99m not sure why it uses these tarballs in the first place, sin= ce we > > have a hg-download. =20 Changed to hg-download in commit(s): 7636c49b45adb9870cf416c64bde032ec858a820 Thanks for pointing this out. Bj=C3=B6rn --Sig_/UqsucH3upyijfIDW/qDg6RD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EAREKAB0WIQQiGUP0np8nb5SZM4K/KGy2WT5f/QUCZBLdbAAKCRC/KGy2WT5f /cvrAKCX2tIMh/Lcnt+TkIGaWDmMfztqqQCeNppX9Ndwy3OaCU7p+3l49E+qY18= =5nU7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/UqsucH3upyijfIDW/qDg6RD-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 16 07:48:28 2023 Received: (at 62071) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Mar 2023 11:48:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41420 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pcm5s-0005LH-LO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2023 07:48:28 -0400 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:58476) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pcm5q-0005KM-Ag for 62071@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2023 07:48:27 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inria.fr; s=dc; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=M6eskbhir0oWXyW1Vw3QIO6UmubtlbmfHSgQbbu3HCQ=; b=M0t/fBM5jOgNFYg9VWqqsjQuRCwNFfaWn0Z596bSpoqoSiVRNroAmnNq Hzn+v7AVRPsAb+i5HkUu5kXkoSOD0sAMC00yMp/UGfYbipkRecihJjKeB 06kIa7CX0FW7qLGIuFW+3vrMBulW0FRNfAo7AzisL5/lNqiP6xzNyqn93 8=; Authentication-Results: mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=SoftFail smtp.mailfrom=ludovic.courtes@inria.fr; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) d=inria.fr X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.98,265,1673910000"; d="scan'208";a="97548638" Received: from 91-160-117-201.subs.proxad.net (HELO ribbon) ([91.160.117.201]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Mar 2023 12:48:20 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_H=C3=B6fling?= Subject: Re: bug#62071: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible References: <20230312220021.22bfff4f@tangletp> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 12:48:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20230312220021.22bfff4f@tangletp> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Bj=C3=B6rn?= =?utf-8?Q?_H=C3=B6fling=22's?= message of "Sun, 12 Mar 2023 22:00:21 +0100") Message-ID: <878rfwgbng.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62071 Cc: 62071@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars-Dominik Braun X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) Hi Bj=C3=B6rn, Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling skribis: > I will check the same for JDK10 and will prepare a patch within the > next two days. Thanks for 7636c49b45adb9870cf416c64bde032ec858a820 and its parent commit! For the record, there are two remaining issues: 1. Reproducibility of past revisions. If we lose copies of the auto-generated tarballs, then OpenJDK in past revisions of Guix is irreparably lost. We should check whether/how to get them in Disarchive + SWH. 2. Mercurial/SWH bridge. While SWH has a one-to-one mapping with Git (you can ask it for a specific Git commit ID), that=E2=80=99s not true= for hg. This is a more general problem, but as things are today, there=E2=80=99s no automatic SWH fallback if the upstream hg server vanishes. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Mar 16 08:37:41 2023 Received: (at 62071) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Mar 2023 12:37:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41450 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pcmrV-0006fn-6N for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:37:41 -0400 Received: from mout.web.de ([217.72.192.78]:36323) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pcmrS-0006fZ-Al for 62071@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:37:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=s29768273; t=1678970250; i=jonathan.brielmaier@web.de; bh=GCe5buEsQDdNE7WSERFMz1fRT9lJUqNy/dDenmpl/8c=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:To:Subject:From; b=mU3tfvUC/Pdb+cymr8Y/L0aXPzbi7xRgqVMfTsA/7DQVrnUVXY4xA/EVo4Ew5dqip MKcT2O9NeOfF+JoPh/IJ4KnDDu2RyDAcCIRHzD66U5kZw3hoUK0/XN9nxH8Vc/gzLR mwDHJw25OW/mtf2GUXUxBQnsb5n3KcnOKBf6I5VFLjAhRA4GC9Rh+hoq4SHW3O5dlO XKqYfoZM36WQsrNcLmq3YlhxgSoHtW67EteO6+wUA6piL9Hg0NDzAJNgV8wrl1W+c2 w02ATSMhfJmw7jeB6/ifs4PdS/SnYmPvHq2MFgbXAoQ62FSPMLJSrI/a7FWY9vKCA3 7nATPWFHNsQaA== X-UI-Sender-Class: 814a7b36-bfc1-4dae-8640-3722d8ec6cd6 Received: from [192.168.178.23] ([77.182.72.89]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb105 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MMY1N-1puj7N0jdX-00Jm07 for <62071@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 2023 13:37:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 13:37:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.0 To: 62071@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible Content-Language: en-US From: Jonathan Brielmaier Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:6BJk9LyD/tHjDkyKU2c7d75TPrDf8HbJpG2ua6/9IHknSyZtEWT xpn37nTA83s0E7k9427Od3cdkF0XD2l1td6k6u5oBmxlG05Q0vgf3+M25XrOCtLKsy4+iFV HVXnzxwT9kQ85/Zr83ieDNB03zbaIQ6riwZnslpJk0KIp0sf/wXp44t3x0Mp+l8J14Zm5Ur Bc2ilyfSDQt0v5IDpTvmA== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:jQv03ZBNh+w=;Ey037yNQ/x0K1Q9tEvyKPZySeC9 golbTx8t3BH534teZozOFkhn/w/3XM7lSVxxkTznUUe7dBvYk+NAHanOLFwP/RJziGwAWaLI8 VMzSHQQ/yH+ddLxSNMaDq5tbN3cKKdu7/tjK5JSrAP5VuMC9WZkoO4+hBBHhoaqiZfujINvrw 20U1fmvFNdxjoqnkbwYTSYC6HcSYnj3XIPcg6/y5swHUoLe+FvhgCxnXMF0ieIeIptFn8X3Nc FxM6N0SqTi+yAJkIQH1Pmq4agHhWjP3LlJeEb8+I5rCrDHuZcAoIIMOIAuV7JKEZ6t6QElroV xtmJt5pMdJp+fsXldy+hfSogY955oF0R6O5Dfgwo7OMw1cy4YeZen1OHYTGog7yYrPq/LRXIk 577swn9/aYyf9RvHs9BB752y3/XSGRg6t4C+IA1+js04X3q+DI2dT4uYWd7E/3enOeRxqFRk4 bgmNWFwRk6ohvbC+N1VUIKy//oMngitjUJUsU53B/Xpjqk92Oych38ctbvvVc3cUk3B6sAykJ Dw0UMexInCTKrpjyTzckNSJcxVBQPbVrLGYEFjf9NQ60g3TJTVBbFEP26JnsfTjIWLAE6IyOS t4mO+mkW7eRV+pfe6ckjOXVBWIZs9j8OJZLfin7AHNH8u0qevv5FjsB9c2/BjlKoDMl376SIL gyQxEVNWLEtF1d0aZbbnl1YxrGiY16K/IhMFkP3lYJTP3Fr81gZweIoz39Gh7Rq343o3FFBMw rc/X6EwHmxmx1P02unNygnS6nzOEXM/7ndVRCZ5wpzeEOlOeQrkMEN6utFnt/JsCqajh5YhkG n/dO++bsrdVM9YaFPrnZb1eDHcBkTXVc1a8nEbh1pjra+wlXsb5Xoj8QOdM5PgvEK5cy0PFXw K/5iD60/WhFC77g680EDasOSucAI7soYr/AcQrjHGdhCbphVlbcVPdHE9yzf/OxAVo8r2Mf/a gMju6w== X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62071 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) I=E2=80=99m not sure why it uses these tarballs in the first place, since = we have a hg-download. -> I guess a reason could be that downloading via hg is quite slow. Thats at least my impression when fetching the "comm" repository for Thunderbird with mecurial. Tarballs and git checkout tend to be way faster... From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Mar 17 18:10:38 2023 Received: (at 62071) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Mar 2023 22:10:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45836 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pdIHV-0002Xq-On for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 18:10:38 -0400 Received: from m4s11.vlinux.de ([83.151.27.109]:43862 helo=bjoernhoefling.de) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pdIHT-0002Xi-GB for 62071@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 18:10:36 -0400 Received: from tangletp (p57b52d01.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [87.181.45.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bjoernhoefling.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4BA13FBF3; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 23:10:32 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 23:10:31 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIEjDtmZsaW5n?= To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?B?Q291cnTDqHM=?= Subject: Re: bug#62071: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible Message-ID: <20230317231031.4a7eb099@tangletp> In-Reply-To: <878rfwgbng.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20230312220021.22bfff4f@tangletp> <878rfwgbng.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.0.0 (GTK+ 3.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/h/2UsoL=uPnNWq11.xROa91"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62071 Cc: 62071@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars-Dominik Braun X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --Sig_/h/2UsoL=uPnNWq11.xROa91 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 12:48:19 +0100 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Hi Bj=C3=B6rn, >=20 > Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling skribis: >=20 > > I will check the same for JDK10 and will prepare a patch within the > > next two days. =20 >=20 > Thanks for 7636c49b45adb9870cf416c64bde032ec858a820 and its parent > commit! >=20 > For the record, there are two remaining issues: >=20 > 1. Reproducibility of past revisions. If we lose copies of the > auto-generated tarballs, then OpenJDK in past revisions of Guix > is irreparably lost. We should check whether/how to get them in > Disarchive + SWH. How do we do that? Adding git repos to SWH is something I can achieve, but adding tarballs to SWH was always opaque to me. I find no reference in the manual about Disarchive. Ideally, is there a linter for just adding a package to the disarchive database? =20 > 2. Mercurial/SWH bridge. While SWH has a one-to-one mapping with > Git (you can ask it for a specific Git commit ID), that=E2=80=99s not tru= e for > hg. This is a more general problem, but as things are today, > there=E2=80=99s no automatic SWH fallback if the upstream hg server > vanishes. For git, I know and appreciate that the linter can directly add a missing repo to SWH. During linting, I recogniced this is missing for hg. I was thinking a second time about it and found that not only the newer development of OpenJDK is on GitHub, but also the older versions are available. So I could add another patch like this:=20 + (method git-fetch) + (uri (git-reference + (url "https://github.com/openjdk/jdk9") WDYT? Bj=C3=B6rn --Sig_/h/2UsoL=uPnNWq11.xROa91 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EAREKAB0WIQQiGUP0np8nb5SZM4K/KGy2WT5f/QUCZBTlVwAKCRC/KGy2WT5f /UTFAKC6Nbe4Uc4F71mhNsJySzonXCJzfgCeL003G2uF0s1Kw+ePFz+jFSIv7o0= =bIQP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/h/2UsoL=uPnNWq11.xROa91-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Mar 20 05:08:44 2023 Received: (at 62071) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Mar 2023 09:08:44 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53676 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1peBVU-0005Nj-8P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 05:08:44 -0400 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:65323) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1peBVR-0005NS-7z for 62071@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2023 05:08:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inria.fr; s=dc; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to: message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cDN1cmbmBQLCd5tfkTw7FP/Tir+uePbH8CWg8ebfjnA=; b=XOuqRELXUnoSdI4lFPPwzRDGcKsRVmIix+jVV/raciWu8exLtN+eua/h IEGodaII1CGqIsLlHJor+Ek+BieZIf7t4A8FTRdJBjzfTKpN0ZgcdY4W+ 14T+DC/9rLErybV9JdcLY0m5BZUHGKMLHEPDf0fJL7PcxGUn9TlLAOnSq A=; Authentication-Results: mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=SoftFail smtp.mailfrom=ludovic.courtes@inria.fr; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) d=inria.fr X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.98,274,1673910000"; d="scan'208";a="50656061" Received: from unknown (HELO ribbon) ([193.50.110.213]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Mar 2023 10:08:35 +0100 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_H=C3=B6fling?= Subject: Re: bug#62071: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible References: <20230312220021.22bfff4f@tangletp> <878rfwgbng.fsf@gnu.org> <20230317231031.4a7eb099@tangletp> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: =?utf-8?Q?D=C3=A9cadi?= 30 =?utf-8?Q?Vent=C3=B4se?= an 231 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution=2C?= jour du Plantoir X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2023 10:08:34 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20230317231031.4a7eb099@tangletp> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Bj=C3=B6rn?= =?utf-8?Q?_H=C3=B6fling=22's?= message of "Fri, 17 Mar 2023 23:10:31 +0100") Message-ID: <871qljpz71.fsf@inria.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62071 Cc: 62071@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars-Dominik Braun X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hello, Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling skribis: > On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 12:48:19 +0100 > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > >> Hi Bj=C3=B6rn, >>=20 >> Bj=C3=B6rn H=C3=B6fling skribis: >>=20 >> > I will check the same for JDK10 and will prepare a patch within the >> > next two days.=20=20 >>=20 >> Thanks for 7636c49b45adb9870cf416c64bde032ec858a820 and its parent >> commit! >>=20 >> For the record, there are two remaining issues: >>=20 >> 1. Reproducibility of past revisions. If we lose copies of the >> auto-generated tarballs, then OpenJDK in past revisions of Guix >> is irreparably lost. We should check whether/how to get them in >> Disarchive + SWH. > > How do we do that? Adding git repos to SWH is something I can achieve, > but adding tarballs to SWH was always opaque to me. > > I find no reference in the manual about Disarchive. Ideally, is there a > linter for just adding a package to the disarchive database? SWH periodically ingests the contents of tarballs (not tarballs themselves) that appear in . We=E2=80= =99d need to check whether it has the contents of those tarballs. Then is populated by the CI job at . Are the openjdk 9 and 10 tarballs archived? Let=E2=80=99s look at their origins as of commit 1e6ddceb8318d413745ca1c9d91fde01b1e0364b. We can construct their Disarchive URL by first converting their SHA256 to hex: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(guix base32) scheme@(guile-user)> ,use(guix base16) scheme@(guile-user)> (bytevector->base16-string (nix-base32-string->bytevec= tor "01ihmyf7k5z17wbr7xig7y40l9f01d5zjgkcmawn1102hw5kchpq")) $5 =3D "f842360b87028460b9aa6c3ef94b0bc0250a883f2ff693173fe197799caf3006" --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- That gives us: https://disarchive.guix.gnu.org/sha256/f842360b87028460b9aa6c3ef94b0bc025= 0a883f2ff693173fe197799caf3006 https://disarchive.guix.gnu.org/sha256/249fd462bdd32571c6d0a45f3cb698a305= c9e4e66b275d25e990ac0184c0dc7f Both are 404. But like I wrote, this is expected: they are bzip2 tarballs and Disarchive doesn=E2=80=99t support bzip2 (yet). >> 2. Mercurial/SWH bridge. While SWH has a one-to-one mapping with >> Git (you can ask it for a specific Git commit ID), that=E2=80=99s not tr= ue for >> hg. This is a more general problem, but as things are today, >> there=E2=80=99s no automatic SWH fallback if the upstream hg server >> vanishes. > > For git, I know and appreciate that the linter can directly add a > missing repo to SWH. During linting, I recogniced this is missing for > hg. > > I was thinking a second time about it and found that not only the newer > development of OpenJDK is on GitHub, but also the older versions are > available. So I could add another patch like this:=20 > > + (method git-fetch) > + (uri (git-reference > + (url "https://github.com/openjdk/jdk9") > > WDYT? That=E2=80=99s a good idea. It shouldn=E2=80=99t change the SHA256 (if it = does, something=E2=80=99s wrong) so it looks like an no-brainer. Thanks! Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Apr 04 07:51:53 2023 Received: (at 62071) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2023 11:51:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46681 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pjfCa-0000Ni-PO for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2023 07:51:53 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-f44.google.com ([209.85.128.44]:34611) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pjfCY-0000NP-Tj for 62071@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 04 Apr 2023 07:51:51 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-f44.google.com with SMTP id j1-20020a05600c1c0100b003f04da00d07so639731wms.1 for <62071@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 04 Apr 2023 04:51:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680609105; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=lUCTluf6+F1SwDelYM8gC92TG9TcpVMiuWuaBAWbNE0=; b=IYDquVwmmSDSucnfoCfR0HxqTHLQ6vjfy988MXt2HuOoj49k5XZDyaUUj5QVvGeUwn 2psNAuuF5dL/psrflhi9vg9GptTeS9F+ramUk3ue3rzTc7xzmCvVIpa4BZffnDRc/r/9 7PYJyjig00xtbArYA1TLeBRWLMOY8plH99G8xQe3t/Lbr0JxqOJrrxFrvg39d4iea5Eo sAH/kqsqg+jwLsCrfYY2MyLOk4Rcrg5Zo74IQWpZo37YUggXtViYjvyHY3XMV582n0/+ s7C92C5YVR+cuWOKvdBSfphzey2d6YL39XyyL8bKvD4WJ/fWfLBRBCrjazATFGPYCNoT TLFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680609105; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lUCTluf6+F1SwDelYM8gC92TG9TcpVMiuWuaBAWbNE0=; b=2PH9adn9m9h+ERk5nLmavipLf1NpLb+2ROljgokJvH+MyVETLf/4+qgj0dc/SGawcK Xi5jCHHibvM12HlvUVf60xoHKkjv1acAGDFktZsMd3/o2NuRdOQ7GQ4qpvhJ8ndwV1BJ WtBLl4kzb5438VTnE6joH4FgPvV/cXjwJLJpEt6xxb//Ms2KkyYiv8lKcvVo7/xPiieK o214kSKgD7kwgDNTJ6zvdnJ6hPFmNiRhqCA7b3ddP7HFH5uTr/ZmzVX1/EFg24UUDEJI 4Snyakq6n4gefvgzT9CUfxHBm3oCC5aogBK5MGV6uggXe+H4n4YVtB//nvDKCuCz+yXP PzIg== X-Gm-Message-State: AAQBX9cFiVtThDjEyW1+pBSh79OgGMzXGvani1DE5owjylLitGNQb7HA RKkLhiXAawX+0BnMps6zWDA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AKy350baI5AUXpsPDSe1UrgYfEcT1s/qWHLqQJghYmkPf6mik9Gr55N0NsUo9Lbwu6Jz+YEQcnZOhA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:19c7:b0:3f0:5a8c:fee4 with SMTP id u7-20020a05600c19c700b003f05a8cfee4mr2112789wmq.4.1680609104783; Tue, 04 Apr 2023 04:51:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k4-20020a05600c1c8400b003ee610d1ce9sm22648176wms.34.2023.04.04.04.51.44 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 04 Apr 2023 04:51:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Tournier To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn_H=C3=B6fling?= Subject: Re: bug#62071: openjdk@9/10 sources not reproducible In-Reply-To: <871qljpz71.fsf@inria.fr> References: <20230312220021.22bfff4f@tangletp> <878rfwgbng.fsf@gnu.org> <20230317231031.4a7eb099@tangletp> <871qljpz71.fsf@inria.fr> Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2023 23:52:48 +0200 Message-ID: <86h6twy6of.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 62071 Cc: 62071@debbugs.gnu.org, Lars-Dominik Braun X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/) Hi, On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 10:08, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> I was thinking a second time about it and found that not only the newer >> development of OpenJDK is on GitHub, but also the older versions are >> available. So I could add another patch like this:=20 >> >> + (method git-fetch) >> + (uri (git-reference >> + (url "https://github.com/openjdk/jdk9") > > That=E2=80=99s a good idea. It shouldn=E2=80=99t change the SHA256 (if i= t does, > something=E2=80=99s wrong) so it looks like an no-brainer. Well, by experience, it is rare that the released tarball contain the exact same content as the tagged commit. If it is the case (same SHA256 for both tarball and GitHub tagged release), indeed no-brainer. :-) Else, some work still remain for the complete preservation of Guix. ;-) Bj=C3=B6rn, what is the status of this SHA256? Cheers, simon From unknown Thu Jun 19 14:05:10 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Wed, 03 May 2023 11:24:08 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator