Re: core-updates invites to an ungrafting party
Hi, Simon Tournier writes: > Hi, > > On Sun, 08 Oct 2023 at 11:12, Maxim Cournoyer > wrote: > > >> such as fixes to >> git-minimal (bug#65924) > > Why not also update git-minimal/pinned? > > Well, the idea with git-minimal/pinned (as well as with all /pinned > packages) is to have a variant that is barely updated – barely means a > core-updates round, I guess. :-) It avoids a world rebuild and allows to > update non-pinned variants more frequently. > > Somehow, the update of git-minimal should not be a world rebuild. :-) > > $ guix refresh -l -e '(@@ (gnu packages version-control) git-minimal)' | cut > -f1 -d':' > Building the following 152 packages would ensure 370 dependent packages are > rebuilt > > $ guix refresh -l -e '(@@ (gnu packages version-control) git-minimal/pinned)' > | cut -f1 -d':' > Building the following 2200 packages would ensure 5224 dependent packages are > rebuilt > > Although, the change in bug#65924 also impacts git-minimal/pinned, hence > maybe the world rebuild you are talking about. :-) > > Anyway. Update git-minimal/pinned too? It's simply been overlooked. Would you mind sending a patch? :-) -- Thanks, Maxim
Re: core-updates invites to an ungrafting party
Hi, On Sun, 08 Oct 2023 at 11:12, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > such as fixes to > git-minimal (bug#65924) Why not also update git-minimal/pinned? Well, the idea with git-minimal/pinned (as well as with all /pinned packages) is to have a variant that is barely updated – barely means a core-updates round, I guess. :-) It avoids a world rebuild and allows to update non-pinned variants more frequently. Somehow, the update of git-minimal should not be a world rebuild. :-) --8<---cut here---start->8--- $ guix refresh -l -e '(@@ (gnu packages version-control) git-minimal)' | cut -f1 -d':' Building the following 152 packages would ensure 370 dependent packages are rebuilt $ guix refresh -l -e '(@@ (gnu packages version-control) git-minimal/pinned)' | cut -f1 -d':' Building the following 2200 packages would ensure 5224 dependent packages are rebuilt --8<---cut here---end--->8--- Although, the change in bug#65924 also impacts git-minimal/pinned, hence maybe the world rebuild you are talking about. :-) Anyway. Update git-minimal/pinned too? Cheers, simon
Re: core-updates invites to an ungrafting party
Hi John, John Kehayias writes: > Hi Maxim et al, > > On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 11:12 AM, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > >> Hello Guix! >> >> The core-updates branch is still alive, and has accumulated (or plans >> to) a few changes that cause world-rebuilds, such as fixes to >> git-minimal (bug#65924) as well as docbook improvements (bug#65479) and >> fixes to the build systems so that deep input rewriting works as >> intended (bug#65665). >> >> I think we could also batch ungrafting of all grafted packages, to make >> the most out of this complete rebuild. >> > > That sounds good, we have suddenly got a bunch of grafts deep in the > dependency tree. > > Speaking of which, I was planning to at least ungraft libx11 and > libxpm, recipients of recent grafts for security reasons, on a > forthcoming mesa-updates branch. I'm just waiting for the next point > release of mesa, since 23.2.1 is actually the first release where > typically a first .1 release is considered the start of the stable > series. (Though 23.2 has had a long release candidate time.) > > So, what are we thinking of the time to build/merge core-updates? I > was hoping to do some ungrafting and updating in the mesa-related > ecosystem this week, depending on upstream. I should be able to drive this merge in a speedy manner, since I have a lot of time at the moment. I'm hopeful it could be merged into master in a month time (so, approximately mid-November). > I'll start a separate thread soon to ask for what patches to include > there that I don't already know about, but I'm happy to include > similar scope ungrafting if that makes sense before core-updates. To keep things easy to follow and avoid duplicating efforts, I'd keep most ungrafting to core-updates, unless those pertaining to other teams such as mesa. -- Thanks, Maxim
Re: core-updates invites to an ungrafting party
Hi Maxim et al, On Sun, Oct 08, 2023 at 11:12 AM, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Hello Guix! > > The core-updates branch is still alive, and has accumulated (or plans > to) a few changes that cause world-rebuilds, such as fixes to > git-minimal (bug#65924) as well as docbook improvements (bug#65479) and > fixes to the build systems so that deep input rewriting works as > intended (bug#65665). > > I think we could also batch ungrafting of all grafted packages, to make > the most out of this complete rebuild. > That sounds good, we have suddenly got a bunch of grafts deep in the dependency tree. Speaking of which, I was planning to at least ungraft libx11 and libxpm, recipients of recent grafts for security reasons, on a forthcoming mesa-updates branch. I'm just waiting for the next point release of mesa, since 23.2.1 is actually the first release where typically a first .1 release is considered the start of the stable series. (Though 23.2 has had a long release candidate time.) So, what are we thinking of the time to build/merge core-updates? I was hoping to do some ungrafting and updating in the mesa-related ecosystem this week, depending on upstream. I'll start a separate thread soon to ask for what patches to include there that I don't already know about, but I'm happy to include similar scope ungrafting if that makes sense before core-updates. What does everyone think? I think it is more a question of timing/resources, either doing some ungrafting earlier but then having more builds again soon after (e.g. glibc ungraft), or knocking some of it out earlier with a smaller scope. > To recall, the policy surrounding what goes to core-updates is still > unchanged (per the Contributing section of our manual), except for areas > covered by teams (which is still patchy at best -- have you considered > joining teams?) > And thanks for pointing this out. I do hope we continue building teams and scopes for them so core-updates doesn't end up getting too unwieldy. I'm optimistic of a quicker merge timeline here as well, the ungrafting being a nice immediate reason to do this. > What do you think? If you are interested in participating in the > effort, you can send your ungrafting patches for review with the > --subject-prefix='PATCH core-updates' prefix or if you are a committer > you could simple version bumps to core tools that have been posted to > guix-patches, if any. Thanks Maxim for getting things rolling here! John
core-updates invites to an ungrafting party
Hello Guix! The core-updates branch is still alive, and has accumulated (or plans to) a few changes that cause world-rebuilds, such as fixes to git-minimal (bug#65924) as well as docbook improvements (bug#65479) and fixes to the build systems so that deep input rewriting works as intended (bug#65665). I think we could also batch ungrafting of all grafted packages, to make the most out of this complete rebuild. To recall, the policy surrounding what goes to core-updates is still unchanged (per the Contributing section of our manual), except for areas covered by teams (which is still patchy at best -- have you considered joining teams?) What do you think? If you are interested in participating in the effort, you can send your ungrafting patches for review with the --subject-prefix='PATCH core-updates' prefix or if you are a committer you could simple version bumps to core tools that have been posted to guix-patches, if any. -- Thanks, Maxim
