Hello, Björn Höfling <[email protected]> skribis:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 12:48:19 +0100 > Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Björn, >> >> Björn Höfling <[email protected]> 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. > > 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 <https://guix.gnu.org/sources.json>. We’d need to check whether it has the contents of those tarballs. Then <https://disarchive.guix.gnu.org> is populated by the CI job at <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/disarchive>. Are the openjdk 9 and 10 tarballs archived? Let’s 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->bytevector "01ihmyf7k5z17wbr7xig7y40l9f01d5zjgkcmawn1102hw5kchpq")) $5 = "f842360b87028460b9aa6c3ef94b0bc0250a883f2ff693173fe197799caf3006" --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- That gives us: https://disarchive.guix.gnu.org/sha256/f842360b87028460b9aa6c3ef94b0bc0250a883f2ff693173fe197799caf3006 https://disarchive.guix.gnu.org/sha256/249fd462bdd32571c6d0a45f3cb698a305c9e4e66b275d25e990ac0184c0dc7f Both are 404. But like I wrote, this is expected: they are bzip2 tarballs and Disarchive doesn’t 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’s not true for >> hg. This is a more general problem, but as things are today, >> there’s 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: > > + (method git-fetch) > + (uri (git-reference > + (url "https://github.com/openjdk/jdk9";) > > WDYT? That’s a good idea. It shouldn’t change the SHA256 (if it does, something’s wrong) so it looks like an no-brainer. Thanks! Ludo’.
