GNU logs - #26734, boring messages

Message sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#26734: Snippets (even empty ones) of tar sources reset the timestamps of all files
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 13:58:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26734.B.149364704620255 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.2.1
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN>
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 15:57:00 +0200
Message-ID: <874lx4d6j7.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Please consider the following package:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-public hello
  (package
    (name "hello")
    (version "2.10")
    (source (origin
              (method url-fetch)
              (uri (string-append "mirror://gnu/hello/hello-" version
                                  ".tar.gz"))
              (sha256
               (base32
                "0ssi1wpaf7plaswqqjwigppsg5fyh99vdlb9kzl7c9lng89ndq1i"))
              (modules '((guix build utils)))
              (snippet '(begin #t))))
    (build-system gnu-build-system)
    (synopsis "Hello, GNU world: An example GNU package")
    (description
     "GNU Hello prints the message \"Hello, world!\" and then exits.  It
serves as an example of standard GNU coding practices.  As such, it supports
command-line arguments, multiple languages, and so on.")
    (home-page "https://www.gnu.org/software/hello/")
    (license gpl3+)))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

It is the 'hello' package with two extra lines that add an empty
snippet.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(modules '((guix build utils)))
(snippet '(begin #t))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Now here is the output of 'ls -l' within the original (extracted)
'hello':

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  93787 Nov 16  2014 ABOUT-NLS
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  43830 Nov 16  2014 aclocal.m4
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users    593 Jul 19  2014 AUTHORS
drwxr-xr-x 3 clement users   4096 Nov 16  2014 build-aux/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  12988 Nov 16  2014 ChangeLog
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  30632 Jul 19  2014 ChangeLog.O
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  32871 Nov 16  2014 config.in
-rwxr-xr-x 1 clement users 449922 Nov 16  2014 configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   2408 Oct  5  2014 configure.ac
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Nov 16  2014 contrib/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  35147 Dec 12  2013 COPYING
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Nov 16  2014 doc/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   4573 Nov 16  2014 GNUmakefile
-r--r--r-- 1 clement users   1400 Nov 16  2014 hello.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  15752 Dec 29  2013 INSTALL
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Nov 16  2014 lib/
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Nov 16  2014 m4/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  63223 Nov 16  2014 maint.mk
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   4367 Aug  5  2014 Makefile.am
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users 143282 Nov 16  2014 Makefile.in
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Nov 16  2014 man/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   4023 Nov 16  2014 NEWS
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Nov 16  2014 po/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   3582 Jul 19  2014 README
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   1571 Jul 19  2014 README-dev
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   3014 Nov 16  2014 README-release
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Nov 16  2014 src/
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Nov 16  2014 tests/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users    898 Jul 19  2014 THANKS
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users     75 Jul 19  2014 TODO
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

And here is the same output within the modified 'hello' (with the empty
snippet):

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  93787 Jan  1  1970 ABOUT-NLS
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  43830 Jan  1  1970 aclocal.m4
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users    593 Jan  1  1970 AUTHORS
drwxr-xr-x 3 clement users   4096 Jan  1  1970 build-aux/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  12988 Jan  1  1970 ChangeLog
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  30632 Jan  1  1970 ChangeLog.O
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  32871 Jan  1  1970 config.in
-rwxr-xr-x 1 clement users 449922 Jan  1  1970 configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   2408 Jan  1  1970 configure.ac
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Jan  1  1970 contrib/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  35147 Jan  1  1970 COPYING
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Jan  1  1970 doc/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   4573 Jan  1  1970 GNUmakefile
-r--r--r-- 1 clement users   1400 Jan  1  1970 hello.1
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  15752 Jan  1  1970 INSTALL
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Jan  1  1970 lib/
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Jan  1  1970 m4/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users  63223 Jan  1  1970 maint.mk
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   4367 Jan  1  1970 Makefile.am
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users 143282 Jan  1  1970 Makefile.in
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Jan  1  1970 man/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   4023 Jan  1  1970 NEWS
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Jan  1  1970 po/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   3582 Jan  1  1970 README
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   1571 Jan  1  1970 README-dev
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users   3014 Jan  1  1970 README-release
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Jan  1  1970 src/
drwxr-xr-x 2 clement users   4096 Jan  1  1970 tests/
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users    898 Jan  1  1970 THANKS
-rw-r--r-- 1 clement users     75 Jan  1  1970 TODO
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

As you can see, the timestamps are not the same, although there is
nothing in the snippet.

I think the code is in guix/packages.scm (patch-and-repack).  Here is my
understanding of what happens: the presence of the snippet leads to 3
things:

1. extraction of the archive,
2. modification of some files (because of patches or snippet),
3. compression of the archive.

Step 3 sets all timestamps to zero so to avoid non-determinism in the
archive.  We obviously don't want archives to depend on the time of
their creation.  But I believe we should only reset the timestamps of
the files we modified in step 2.  Unmodified files should stay
unmodified.

What's the point?  Well, while working on the 0ad package, I realized
that building with 32 cores would always fail with a snippet (even if it
is empty) and always succeed without a snippet.  It took me a few hours
to understand this, and I put a comment in the 0ad package.  Maybe it is
a 0ad bug (some tricky race condition that depends of file timestamps),
but I believe it is also a Guix bug: an empty snippet should not change
in any way the binary output of a package.

I tried to patch 'patch-and-repack', but it triggers a full
rebuild...  WDYT?

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#26734: Acknowledgement (Snippets (even empty ones) of tar
 sources reset the timestamps of all files)
Message-ID: <handler.26734.B.149364704620255.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <874lx4d6j7.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 26734
X-Gnu-PR-Package: guix
Reply-To: 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Mon, 01 May 2017 13:58:02 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 bug-guix@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
26734: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D26734
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Message sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#26734: Snippets (even empty ones) of tar sources reset the timestamps of all files
Resent-From: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 13:01:01 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26734.B26734.149373003130429 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN>
Cc: 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
References: <874lx4d6j7.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 15:00:16 +0200
In-Reply-To: <874lx4d6j7.fsf@HIDDEN> ("=?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?=
 Lassieur"'s message of "Mon, 01 May 2017 15:57:00 +0200")
Message-ID: <87h913h0rj.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi!

Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN> skribis:

> I think the code is in guix/packages.scm (patch-and-repack).  Here is my
> understanding of what happens: the presence of the snippet leads to 3
> things:
>
> 1. extraction of the archive,
> 2. modification of some files (because of patches or snippet),
> 3. compression of the archive.
>
> Step 3 sets all timestamps to zero so to avoid non-determinism in the
> archive.  We obviously don't want archives to depend on the time of
> their creation.  But I believe we should only reset the timestamps of
> the files we modified in step 2.  Unmodified files should stay
> unmodified.

I agree.

> What's the point?  Well, while working on the 0ad package, I realized
> that building with 32 cores would always fail with a snippet (even if it
> is empty) and always succeed without a snippet.  It took me a few hours
> to understand this, and I put a comment in the 0ad package.  Maybe it is
> a 0ad bug (some tricky race condition that depends of file timestamps),
> but I believe it is also a Guix bug: an empty snippet should not change
> in any way the binary output of a package.

Yeah I was bitten by the same problem recently.

> I tried to patch 'patch-and-repack', but it triggers a full
> rebuild...  WDYT?

Right, it=E2=80=99s expected to trigger a full rebuild, so this should be f=
ixed
in =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99.

I guess we=E2=80=99ll have to collect the timestamps of all non-symlink fil=
es=C2=B9
in step #1 and to reapply them with =E2=80=98set-file-time=E2=80=99 from (g=
uix build
utils) after step #2.

Thoughts?  Would you like to do that?

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.

=C2=B9 Because Guile provides bindings for =E2=80=98utime=E2=80=99, which d=
oes not support
  setting timestamps on symlinks.

Message sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN:

Subject: bug#26734: Snippets (even empty ones) of tar sources reset the timestamps of all files
Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 13:18:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26734.B26734.149373105331994 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
Cc: 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
References: <874lx4d6j7.fsf@HIDDEN> <87h913h0rj.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.2.1
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN>
In-reply-to: <87h913h0rj.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2017 15:17:29 +0200
Message-ID: <87d1brmm8m.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: list
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@HIDDEN> writes:

> Clément Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN> skribis:
>
>> I tried to patch 'patch-and-repack', but it triggers a full
>> rebuild...  WDYT?
>
> Right, it’s expected to trigger a full rebuild, so this should be fixed
> in ‘core-updates’.

Yes, but is there a way to test the patch on one package without having
first to rebuild everything?

> I guess we’ll have to collect the timestamps of all non-symlink files¹
> in step #1 and to reapply them with ‘set-file-time’ from (guix build
> utils) after step #2.

Does that mean that symlinks will still have their timestamps changed?
To me that is a half-solution...  Wouldn't it be easier to collect all
recently modified files (those modified by snippet and patches), and set
their timestamp to "1 January 1970", without changing the other files?
That means removing the --mtime option from tar at step 3.

> Thoughts?  Would you like to do that?

Sure :-)

> ¹ Because Guile provides bindings for ‘utime’, which does not support
>   setting timestamps on symlinks.

If the guile binding doesn't support setting timestamps on symlinks, I
guess we can still use another way, like a system touch.

Message sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26734: Snippets (even empty ones) of tar sources reset the timestamps of all files
Resent-From: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 09:00:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26734.B26734.149380195322646 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26734
X-GNU-PR-Package: guix
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN>
Cc: 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Received: via spool by 26734-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26734.149380195322646
          (code B ref 26734); Wed, 03 May 2017 09:00:02 +0000
Received: (at 26734) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 May 2017 08:59:13 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51901 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1d5q7t-0005tC-8i
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 04:59:13 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37017)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1d5q7r-0005sz-Q6
 for 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 04:59:12 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1d5q7i-0008P9-JW
 for 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 04:59:06 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43725)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1d5q7i-0008P5-GD; Wed, 03 May 2017 04:59:02 -0400
Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:54484 helo=ribbon)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1d5q7h-0000Qc-NH; Wed, 03 May 2017 04:59:02 -0400
From: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
References: <874lx4d6j7.fsf@HIDDEN> <87h913h0rj.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87d1brmm8m.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/
X-Revolutionary-Date: 14 =?UTF-8?Q?Flor=C3=A9al?= an 225 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?=
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-unknown-linux-gnu
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 10:58:59 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87d1brmm8m.fsf@HIDDEN> ("=?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?=
 Lassieur"'s message of "Tue, 02 May 2017 15:17:29 +0200")
Message-ID: <87fugmxqng.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)

Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN> skribis:

> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@HIDDEN> writes:
>
>> Cl=C3=A9ment Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN> skribis:
>>
>>> I tried to patch 'patch-and-repack', but it triggers a full
>>> rebuild...  WDYT?
>>
>> Right, it=E2=80=99s expected to trigger a full rebuild, so this should b=
e fixed
>> in =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99.
>
> Yes, but is there a way to test the patch on one package without having
> first to rebuild everything?

I would add a snippet in =E2=80=98gnu-make-boot0=E2=80=99, which is the fir=
st package
being built, and then run:

  ./pre-inst-env guix build -S --rounds=3D2 \
    -e '(@@ (gnu packages commencement) gnu-make-boot0)'

>> I guess we=E2=80=99ll have to collect the timestamps of all non-symlink =
files=C2=B9
>> in step #1 and to reapply them with =E2=80=98set-file-time=E2=80=99 from=
 (guix build
>> utils) after step #2.
>
> Does that mean that symlinks will still have their timestamps changed?

No, that means symlinks will still have their timestamps unchanged.  :-)

BTW, what timestamps to we put on the modified files?  We want that to
be deterministic so we cannot use the build time.  We cannot use a date
in the future, either.  We cannot use Jan. 1 1970 either because that
means that modified files may now be older than the unmodified files,
which may break build systems; for the same reason, we cannot leave the
mtime of modified files unchanged.

Now that I think about it, it=E2=80=99s not clear to me what can be done wi=
thout
breaking something.

Thoughts?

>> =C2=B9 Because Guile provides bindings for =E2=80=98utime=E2=80=99, whic=
h does not support
>>   setting timestamps on symlinks.
>
> If the guile binding doesn't support setting timestamps on symlinks, I
> guess we can still use another way, like a system touch.

Or we could add bindings for =E2=80=98futimes=E2=80=99.

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.

Message sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26734: Snippets (even empty ones) of tar sources reset the timestamps of all files
Resent-From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 21:46:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26734.B26734.149384793923721 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26734
X-GNU-PR-Package: guix
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Cc: 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN>
Received: via spool by 26734-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26734.149384793923721
          (code B ref 26734); Wed, 03 May 2017 21:46:02 +0000
Received: (at 26734) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 May 2017 21:45:39 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53278 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1d625b-0006AX-L3
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 17:45:39 -0400
Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:44901)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <mhw@HIDDEN>) id 1d625Z-0006AK-V9
 for 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 17:45:38 -0400
Received: from pool-72-93-31-169.bstnma.east.verizon.net ([72.93.31.169]
 helo=jojen)
 by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mhw@HIDDEN>)
 id 1d625U-0003AV-0K; Wed, 03 May 2017 17:45:32 -0400
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN>
References: <874lx4d6j7.fsf@HIDDEN> <87h913h0rj.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87d1brmm8m.fsf@HIDDEN> <87fugmxqng.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 17:45:20 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87fugmxqng.fsf@HIDDEN> ("Ludovic
 \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
 \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Wed, 03 May 2017 10:58:59 +0200")
Message-ID: <87r305iphr.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)

ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:

> BTW, what timestamps to we put on the modified files?  We want that to
> be deterministic so we cannot use the build time.  We cannot use a date
> in the future, either.  We cannot use Jan. 1 1970 either because that
> means that modified files may now be older than the unmodified files,
> which may break build systems; for the same reason, we cannot leave the
> mtime of modified files unchanged.
>
> Now that I think about it, it=E2=80=99s not clear to me what can be done =
without
> breaking something.
>
> Thoughts?

We could set the timestamp of modified files to be 1 second newer than
the newest file in the original source archive.

      Mark

Message sent to bug-guix@HIDDEN:

X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
Subject: bug#26734: Snippets (even empty ones) of tar sources reset the timestamps of all files
Resent-From: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 22:02:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26734.B26734.149384889625204 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 26734
X-GNU-PR-Package: guix
X-GNU-PR-Keywords: 
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN>
Cc: 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur <clement@HIDDEN>
Received: via spool by 26734-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org id=B26734.149384889625204
          (code B ref 26734); Wed, 03 May 2017 22:02:02 +0000
Received: (at 26734) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 May 2017 22:01:36 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53300 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1d62L1-0006YR-SW
	for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 18:01:36 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54807)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1d62Kz-0006YD-1Q
 for 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 18:01:33 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1d62Kq-0005bk-Ov
 for 26734 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 May 2017 18:01:27 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
 autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52193)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1d62Kq-0005bd-Kv; Wed, 03 May 2017 18:01:24 -0400
Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:40394 helo=ribbon)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
 id 1d62Kp-0006od-Vq; Wed, 03 May 2017 18:01:24 -0400
From: ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
References: <874lx4d6j7.fsf@HIDDEN> <87h913h0rj.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87d1brmm8m.fsf@HIDDEN> <87fugmxqng.fsf@HIDDEN>
 <87r305iphr.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/
X-Revolutionary-Date: 15 =?UTF-8?Q?Flor=C3=A9al?= an 225 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?=
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-unknown-linux-gnu
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 00:01:21 +0200
In-Reply-To: <87r305iphr.fsf@HIDDEN> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 03
 May 2017 17:45:20 -0400")
Message-ID: <87r305ppla.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----)

Mark H Weaver <mhw@HIDDEN> skribis:

> ludo@HIDDEN (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:
>
>> BTW, what timestamps to we put on the modified files?  We want that to
>> be deterministic so we cannot use the build time.  We cannot use a date
>> in the future, either.  We cannot use Jan. 1 1970 either because that
>> means that modified files may now be older than the unmodified files,
>> which may break build systems; for the same reason, we cannot leave the
>> mtime of modified files unchanged.
>>
>> Now that I think about it, it=E2=80=99s not clear to me what can be done=
 without
>> breaking something.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> We could set the timestamp of modified files to be 1 second newer than
> the newest file in the original source archive.

Sounds like a good idea.

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.

Last modified: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 12:00:02 UTC

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.