Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>> I don’t think we explicitly discussed it, but my assumption is that >>> we’re delaying merging of ‘core-updates’ into ‘master’ until >>> ‘core-updates-next’ becomes ‘core-updates’. Is this what you had in >>> mind? (I’m asking because ‘core-updates’ was almost entirely built >>> IIRC.) >> >> My preference would be to merge 'core-updates-next' into 'core-updates', >> or equivalently, to apply the following 3 commits to 'core-updates': >> >> commit d4bc93abe59e8ffcb8304050c05e727fe0230651 >> Author: Mark H Weaver >> Date: Thu Aug 15 15:39:30 2019 -0400 >> >> gnu: bootstrap: Update to the 20190815 bootstrap binaries. >> >> * gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm (%bootstrap-linux-libre-headers): Update the >> download URL. >> (%bootstrap-mescc-tools, %bootstrap-mes): Update the download URL and hash. >> >> commit 82eaac49ac983f28768d6623d802f41cbd7f779b >> Author: Mark H Weaver >> Date: Thu Aug 15 16:44:36 2019 -0400 >> >> gnu: bash: Unconditionally configure PGRP_PIPE for *-linux systems. >> >> * gnu/packages/patches/bash-linux-pgrp-pipe.patch: New file. >> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it. >> * gnu/packages/bash.scm (bash)[source]: Add the patch. >> >> commit 47fcdfac44c5bf236299679781133468be6f0207 >> Author: Ludovic Courtès >> Date: Thu Aug 22 11:47:27 2019 +0200 >> >> gnu: bootstrap: Add ftp.gnu.org to '%bootstrap-base-urls'. >> >> * gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm (%bootstrap-base-urls): Add >> ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guix/bootstrap. >> >> These commits are the only difference between 'core-updates' and >> 'core-updates-next'. > > OK. The Bash change means we’re rebuilding from scratch on > architectures, not just x86. So I’ll probably ungraft my Ghostscript > fix (466ff55c72959ba1499ce3ec69f534b3038eb30b) while we’re at it. Hmm, good point. Perhaps we should postpone the Bash fix until the next core-updates cycle. The problem was quite severe in bash-4.4, which builds incorrectly on linux-5.0 or later, but the issue in bash-5.0 is far less likely to cause problems in practice: it will build differently on linux-2.3 or earlier. What do you think? >>> Also, what’s the next step for ‘wip-binaries’? >> >> Good question! First, I think we should tag it with a name that >> indicates that it was used to build the 20190815 bootstrap binaries. >> >> Optionally, I would advocate merging 'wip-binaries' into 'master'. > > Fine with me! Could you take care of tagging and merging? Sure, will do. Thanks, Mark