Hi Richard, On lun., 13 mai 2024 at 20:52, Richard Sent <rich...@freakingpenguin.com> wrote:
> You're correct. This solution wouldn't be sufficient to avoid "Computing > Guix Derivation" for every possible A or B. To my understanding it could > reduce the frequency this occurs. [...] > Assuming D changes significantly less frequently than A, B, C..., I > would think this should be something we could feasibly substitute (at > least for recent D and Z). Well, the package ’guix’ has changed 14 times over the past year. Therefore, this D cannot be this package ’guix’, IMHO. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ git log --format="%cd %s" --since="1 year ago" | grep 'gnu: guix: Update' Mon May 13 18:22:53 2024 +0200 gnu: guix: Update to 7ca9809. Tue Mar 12 14:27:01 2024 +0100 gnu: guix: Update to 4c94b9e. Mon Mar 11 23:14:37 2024 +0100 gnu: guix: Update to 8f4ffb3. Sat Dec 2 15:37:44 2023 +0100 gnu: guix: Update to 1.4.0-16.aeb494322c. Thu Nov 30 07:15:36 2023 +0100 gnu: guix: Update to 1.4.0-15.e0885fcfbb. Thu Nov 9 10:42:55 2023 +0200 gnu: guix: Update to a60ff46. Fri Oct 6 12:26:44 2023 +0200 gnu: guix: Update to e863274. Thu Sep 28 11:44:08 2023 +0200 gnu: guix: Update to d0438fc. Mon Sep 18 12:31:52 2023 +0200 Revert "gnu: guix: Update to 1.4.0-11.658de25e99." Mon Sep 18 06:49:46 2023 +0200 gnu: guix: Update to 1.4.0-11.658de25e99. Tue Aug 22 21:30:49 2023 +0200 gnu: guix: Update to 1.4.0-10.4dfdd82210. Tue Aug 22 11:17:52 2023 +0200 gnu: guix: Update to 30355c1. Mon Oct 2 09:28:02 2023 +0200 gnu: guix: Update to 1.4.0-12.b9fae146d6. Mon Aug 21 18:44:49 2023 +0200 gnu: guix: Update to 0e6215a. Fri Jun 9 22:11:14 2023 +0200 gnu: guix: Update to 44bbfc2. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Maybe I have a bad practise but here my “guix pull” history: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ guix pull -l | grep Generation Generation 1 nov. 17 2023 13:18:58 Generation 2 déc. 11 2023 10:55:51 Generation 3 févr. 02 2024 01:56:52 Generation 4 mars 25 2024 18:22:25 Generation 5 mai 13 2024 19:28:31 (current) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Therefore, I am not convinced that replacing "Computing Guix derivation" (build-aux/build-self.scm) by the package ’guix’ would be robust enough. (Assuming another package ’guix’, lighter e.g., without requiring the test suite, etc.) All that said, any experiment – even if it appears at first clunky – is very welcome! This part will be improved only if there is a collective effort / discussion / try, IMHO, i.e., by challenging the status quo. :-) Cheers, simon
