Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Oct 2020 12:14:05 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 22 08:14:04 2020
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51652 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1kVZTo-0001dL-K9
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 08:14:04 -0400
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:46741)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <mail@HIDDEN>) id 1kVZTm-0001ca-JD
for 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 08:14:03 -0400
X-Originating-IP: 90.92.160.122
Received: from mimimi (lfbn-idf2-1-1094-122.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr
[90.92.160.122]) (Authenticated sender: mail@HIDDEN)
by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 208EE60003;
Thu, 22 Oct 2020 12:13:54 +0000 (UTC)
From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>, Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3okZ3_oSeEBgrKxKKevch39KGHF0Orkyqqk9m5on2VwQNbTw@HIDDEN>
References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai>
<CAJ3okZ1i-OqjjypxYeOcqXpxzAjKVHb9NUq7Gm4FQ76K8RbCmg@HIDDEN>
<CAJ3okZ1z0=jp8b=g4bqq=_=2yJk-z+McJ8PVcdy00cY2nwcyjg@HIDDEN>
<87y2jzzm3d.fsf@HIDDEN>
<CAJ3okZ1UC3fXedXOkU=cwRQ6Tv_iy7xK3xUKtWbND2HBpaUwBA@HIDDEN>
<87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai>
<CAJ3okZ3_oSeEBgrKxKKevch39KGHF0Orkyqqk9m5on2VwQNbTw@HIDDEN>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 14:13:49 +0200
Message-ID: <87k0vi4fwi.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> writes: > If upstream does
not want to patch, do you think it is doable to patch > SLIME and maintain
the patch with the Guix package? Accepted or not, we also need to ping the
SLY maintainer to apply the same change. (SLY is a fork of SLIME.)
Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[217.70.183.195 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
[URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)]
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112
Cc: 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
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: 2.5 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> writes: > If upstream does
not want to patch, do you think it is doable to patch > SLIME and maintain
the patch with the Guix package? Accepted or not, we also need to ping the
SLY maintainer to apply the same change. (SLY is a fork of SLIME.)
Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[217.70.183.195 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
[URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)]
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD
-1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
manager
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> writes:
> If upstream does not want to patch, do you think it is doable to patch
> SLIME and maintain the patch with the Guix package?
Accepted or not, we also need to ping the SLY maintainer to apply the
same change. (SLY is a fork of SLIME.)
=2D-=20
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl+Rd30SHG1haWxAYW1i
cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/NDUH/AomtzDBS811zh0aF3ZCCrLBabxP5ifq
pJh0aZ9SeiUqEs/YdN5wkItFnMksI27lf7LXAzK7bh1z+oacE/lraViEc3tP5GMg
8DIBdzxYOaSVd5cpbP0rocReOAl5pXyJBC7k33/8Kg9PVelY10ZGa03QsnEQb7xM
6YdAXYP1hAaUvOc+gNAyJIfP8oRKxP5Iy2gUspyNInObfA5rMHAC5TtavIDJV3kU
i562EOWsS3OBTtzTg7oKwdEj4/9muL/J5BfGlnxPT5yLQNZ3DRnWW3QCLVS+2c3w
M81rmXAa3qd8y5n4cOmvZ0iJ9t3KJ7/sLFFSHWANj6i71CU9i3xZxKo=
=lOkM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Oct 2020 11:19:27 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Thu Oct 22 07:19:27 2020 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51550 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1kVYcx-0002JD-4a for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:19:27 -0400 Received: from mail-qv1-f68.google.com ([209.85.219.68]:36225) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>) id 1kVYcv-0002Iy-Gp for 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:19:26 -0400 Received: by mail-qv1-f68.google.com with SMTP id ev17so629282qvb.3 for <44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:19:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=g26RmbXQlZlSYFB0KMaKnp3sF54aWf7MYuTp9nCimBk=; b=S8YW2GfMAbGOfzP1ZfZMjLiJQ+8HmGVZycNeKychYYZC9zIdzpP/GFlpM/B8XVbHDr Rhap0AGO1E2ZaKMvP2dMHbRjQeTDdIn1ijAwkfdGysKFhrw8brCXM5rYB/KtH0P579eP FzBxcfTblb/9GEAmGTZ/E+wDm/ZvTvq6r/JHPoe08QoXw/ID3f50u/wlB8fKoJzndtx/ zxRfjoynXg10UcRI1atYHVrJfDno87DCUsdoV/qlmYAMrW1BGSf9ubsNNCz37m9tt15F A/Uz3T7LKufClpQCaIdhg3ANlCWST4aDgR3i6VafGIaao0iWCSVcHTq3iy6rEu6BEepn 9+QQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=g26RmbXQlZlSYFB0KMaKnp3sF54aWf7MYuTp9nCimBk=; b=hfZH+PWgihy4UXfaLn1aVa/AeNjyTdIzPnKo3MisM7UdrSBRwK5f2ytbF1m6vbh/y3 nO3qIsiXLafBXPxD42rmBosRVZHqglf5nJ9Le0Hv24KtWCVtiytQU0t/mjUsNs6hYQOl Wsv9YLqg0F8liX+1uxHSIgKkjWeWAI2NTEp8PRAu4dwaSM8BDdcX7v5MEfQtMaygJTN6 8bARBvUMNalhzuWCfNTmKQgUXx68I/HUbk8JQoIHxZh7syYqVErrHCs3dTnAFMAhvE8J vrBknkdXwJPeNkprK/2eD5Zrfz+X4Hs53Es1k2WtjPnPGlIYoY+B+i3y7l0Ep5ODBGbq Gg3w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5336yZxa8U3+ac3JDl35/WUN8fDyIcrv1mL/Zn9hZkj9NeTWRqWx v+HqhhJ5ERQtbLExiUn0AICdPA/PE+KjYh0Cj8w= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzp5UDPalAR+phHeE/1T2d/CL4127yrQdH0ZeBXtpUrV9V7ezL+N27ddUXbRDNNCcaTZRHfOMtBlL7V3QX1hMw= X-Received: by 2002:ad4:45ec:: with SMTP id q12mr1677095qvu.33.1603365559906; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:19:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> <CAJ3okZ1i-OqjjypxYeOcqXpxzAjKVHb9NUq7Gm4FQ76K8RbCmg@HIDDEN> <CAJ3okZ1z0=jp8b=g4bqq=_=2yJk-z+McJ8PVcdy00cY2nwcyjg@HIDDEN> <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@HIDDEN> <CAJ3okZ1UC3fXedXOkU=cwRQ6Tv_iy7xK3xUKtWbND2HBpaUwBA@HIDDEN> <87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai> In-Reply-To: <87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai> From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:19:08 +0200 Message-ID: <CAJ3okZ3_oSeEBgrKxKKevch39KGHF0Orkyqqk9m5on2VwQNbTw@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN> 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: -1.0 (-) Hi Guillaume, Thank you for asking upstream. On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 18:45, Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> wrote: > A developer of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but > currently Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could > be fixed [2]. We'll see... > > [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/sbcl/mailman/message/37133640/ Ouch! Hard to read when not subscribed. :-) > [2] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583 If upstream does not want to patch, do you think it is doable to patch SLIME and maintain the patch with the Guix package? Thanks, simon
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.
Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 16:55:49 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 12:55:49 2020
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50373 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1kVHOv-00074Z-DJ
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:55:49 -0400
Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:50887)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <mail@HIDDEN>) id 1kVHOt-00074L-LT
for 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:55:48 -0400
X-Originating-IP: 90.92.160.122
Received: from bababa (lfbn-idf2-1-1094-122.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr
[90.92.160.122]) (Authenticated sender: mail@HIDDEN)
by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADEDB60005;
Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:55:40 +0000 (UTC)
From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN>, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible
In-Reply-To: <87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai>
References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai>
<CAJ3okZ1i-OqjjypxYeOcqXpxzAjKVHb9NUq7Gm4FQ76K8RbCmg@HIDDEN>
<CAJ3okZ1z0=jp8b=g4bqq=_=2yJk-z+McJ8PVcdy00cY2nwcyjg@HIDDEN>
<87y2jzzm3d.fsf@HIDDEN>
<CAJ3okZ1UC3fXedXOkU=cwRQ6Tv_iy7xK3xUKtWbND2HBpaUwBA@HIDDEN>
<87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:55:40 +0200
Message-ID: <87imb334dv.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> writes: > A developer
of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but > currently
Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could > be fixed [2].
We'll see... > > [1] https://sourcefo [...]
Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[217.70.183.195 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
[URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)]
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112
Cc: 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
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: 2.5 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> writes: > A developer
of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but > currently
Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could > be fixed [2].
We'll see... > > [1] https://sourcefo [...]
Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[217.70.183.195 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
[URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)]
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD
-1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
manager
1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> writes:
> A developer of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but
> currently Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could
> be fixed [2]. We'll see...
>
> [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/sbcl/mailman/message/37133640/
> [2] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583
Thank you so much for asking!
=2D-=20
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl+QaAwSHG1haWxAYW1i
cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/31wH/3LA595p9lpR88NvU9D6a9sC3Xkp2FWq
n8QP+ZV/OLJ5CYR5yveGhgegs73S65IYpTxC1ZezowGkZzfbU6mHnBO2FJV6Wl8E
R8WJaAzxhxRjNy1TL46tViBY5PQ6QniyIw3lyAwI38VAoch9z4ykEKRIh7ex5/qK
/iKcv0rSNNxCqLDFgob//t+aPY4E4NaYpumtCOpx4bUQp0jECyVuikU1QfkqmQBm
VQ/45m/s5B26G+Xs6pYYQ/zTub3/mxcEszi3+ttnCfCsu0Q7r1vDQe9Ge1hE/riH
LIZM1JRag3iyRrgR7mh5g251EiWgyLG6usCKmCjWcNkj8On2yjYiwVI=
=MonO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 16:46:00 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 12:46:00 2020 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50364 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1kVHFQ-0006ni-3U for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:46:00 -0400 Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]:41171) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <glv@HIDDEN>) id 1kVHFN-0006nS-Je for 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 12:45:58 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BB732400FC for <44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:45:51 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1603298751; bh=4JUARpD9Q+AeFjoX/qdZMUUgl+A7JK9nr4RQY+0T8AQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=jZtb9hl4I3E0MI15SLLOw/8Qji044aoB/TO2ck6ZYDPSIOStuXw2FHqPaYn1zaHN2 5rpgMoi+76YMy0bzhecf+9Irvv/xoNDZ98fmb0mC8lQ+JsfBXVBYRWcWDuoW+uOR/b EI4fpVK5KPkjytZ2zSUbR4stM99fEmg7NZxPuw4xVA3U1WjSiABx53Nic1TNpQvvZS GZ0aliXCFV/uwDhbuJ1zLeFPI1cemOOWxs0faVh7pqTsc4dsymmFYqnY2DqCu2w6MH GKnY+F6dDPAO2GCRESeZs1RJrvN0+KIpwndnLtSWzgaief4RWgN0yJQsoiME9A7FFe hcwo+Po/y6YWw== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4CGbwD0Y1xz6tn1; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:45:47 +0200 (CEST) References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> <CAJ3okZ1i-OqjjypxYeOcqXpxzAjKVHb9NUq7Gm4FQ76K8RbCmg@HIDDEN> <CAJ3okZ1z0=jp8b=g4bqq=_=2yJk-z+McJ8PVcdy00cY2nwcyjg@HIDDEN> <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@HIDDEN> <CAJ3okZ1UC3fXedXOkU=cwRQ6Tv_iy7xK3xUKtWbND2HBpaUwBA@HIDDEN> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.1 From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible In-reply-to: <CAJ3okZ1UC3fXedXOkU=cwRQ6Tv_iy7xK3xUKtWbND2HBpaUwBA@HIDDEN> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 18:45:43 +0200 Message-ID: <87r1przfwo.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN> 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> skribis: >> Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify >> things. Maybe nothing really depends on it and it would be possible... > >Thanks for the explanation. A developer of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but currently Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could be fixed [2]. We'll see... [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/sbcl/mailman/message/37133640/ [2] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583 --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iIUEAREKAC0WIQTLxZxm7Ce5cXlAaz5r6CCK3yH+PwUCX5Bltw8cZ2x2QHBvc3Rl by5uZXQACgkQa+ggit8h/j/HgAD/UNRHvLALDFFdm71pw9wUxnTaLnrAzy//ifOO O+ZuRroA/1U01XRKLlVACRVGA+xqEj0LDgY9iED5rJx0+hIZTVA4 =Rmx0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.
Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 15:13:35 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 11:13:35 2020
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50238 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1kVFnz-0004NO-6B
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:13:35 -0400
Received: from mail-qk1-f180.google.com ([209.85.222.180]:44684)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>) id 1kVFnx-0004N9-Pk
for 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:13:34 -0400
Received: by mail-qk1-f180.google.com with SMTP id s14so2754917qkg.11
for <44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=Q4MBZrslLZ+Gt3PouScFp+jWU9Mwy8MnjCah3g1yZXg=;
b=lfth5cDzwHsmoms9ohMeQH6pyVbRi61VuPv4F7gAHLYxfCcflzB+/DjtjlnI4ro1fo
8rljOM0RYRAKNm8uNME4VjFYtPe6qeDTBtJbK+/v2GpRkx8L/O8VffpUPxP+Lx5NsBtK
Cun0sA0wyVmrCe+VRpfuEyK1ScHSamnfbheUwnY0X7oDytqKZmSjd2iaUKtNSb6/wEiy
A5zJkdF38hMOjUnUaWedZ3r5+A/0jm/3/IXyeWkfi3tBbq/6OhXcCPNoQ113v5as9Zu8
B6xpQwl7fzyWkdK5xDH4+qwyrfZctY8jSYDtOVN1LnVw9DSpfhxME6TCS8O0ENNnezVR
Q13g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=Q4MBZrslLZ+Gt3PouScFp+jWU9Mwy8MnjCah3g1yZXg=;
b=e98ciZl8bI2yV9p3U4pMuUYFj9X/0slJUOM+59qT36TYwxhIVd3Wukbhiyo6fvpNkv
iqRPrHp/rcFiMWKW4/oeCOhjk/p53c3aEqnHqjSw8yxaXbVDQ5eV1phAYqqKc+oQxYgR
wkpDKVN5zTQ+JTGTGTXUlr0ZHRt6A0VNPjgRHcbxyYS8LTRDzyyUyOVDriCRbQ2DlpU7
LDnBrnF4n1htFdrGKZZmIoKzrhQO7Jpyz0nrXvKOzbEPzZRP4IuvtuCjhrGijE8K5oHI
fJuXphZd8QmzKUarIqhyEMaNRRkzviBBAouxp+Qy8QnlQdz3YxXfdOj/kxqFc3stvKqo
B2nQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532KWqt13yDXt1SgM6gwUi9+RW8xtsaxJwIS569S7xg8OIuV0Lm7
7HW+wPC4tLf/5fUqvlWjhXwXroGbtjBTvWnf2u0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxT632T5nnftxkN9HnAZSIkw9q1d5clpNJjmiEqPBzQH1Wbdx+RvdKbguAJ3e2P2x4xIa+LSIRbBd94pzANujM=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:ac11:: with SMTP id e17mr3658482qkm.232.1603293208216;
Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai>
<CAJ3okZ1i-OqjjypxYeOcqXpxzAjKVHb9NUq7Gm4FQ76K8RbCmg@HIDDEN>
<CAJ3okZ1z0=jp8b=g4bqq=_=2yJk-z+McJ8PVcdy00cY2nwcyjg@HIDDEN>
<87y2jzzm3d.fsf@HIDDEN>
In-Reply-To: <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@HIDDEN>
From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:13:17 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ3okZ1UC3fXedXOkU=cwRQ6Tv_iy7xK3xUKtWbND2HBpaUwBA@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 16:32, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > >
In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also > > replaced
it by Clang with the same effect. > > Where? --8<cut herestart>8---
(define-module
(ddc-sbcl) #:use-module (guix packages) #:use-module (guix utils) #:use-module
((guix build utils) #:select (modify-pha [...]
Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
provider (zimon.toutoune[at]gmail.com)
2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
[URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)]
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [209.85.222.180 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2)
[209.85.222.180 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112
Cc: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN>, 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
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: 1.0 (+)
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 16:32, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN> wrote:
> > In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also
> > replaced it by Clang with the same effect.
>
> Where?
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-module (ddc-sbcl)
#:use-module (guix packages)
#:use-module (guix utils)
#:use-module ((guix build utils) #:select (modify-phases))
#:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
#:use-module (ice-9 match)
#:use-module (gnu packages lisp)
#:use-module (gnu packages commencement)
#:use-module (gnu packages llvm))
(define (make-sbcl name string-compil compil cc)
(package
(inherit sbcl)
(name name)
(arguments
(substitute-keyword-arguments (package-arguments sbcl)
((#:phases phases)
`(modify-phases ,phases
(replace 'build
(lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
(setenv "CC" ,cc)
(invoke "sh" "make.sh" ,string-compil
(string-append "--prefix="
(assoc-ref outputs "out"))
"--dynamic-space-size=2Gb"
"--with-sb-core-compression"
"--with-sb-xref-for-internals")))))))
(native-inputs
`(,@(alist-delete "clisp" (package-native-inputs sbcl))
("compil" ,compil)))))
(define-public sbcl-A
(package-with-c-toolchain
(make-sbcl "sbcl-A" "clisp" clisp "gcc")
`(("gcc" ,gcc-toolchain)))) ;fail with 6
(define-public sbcl-B
(package-with-c-toolchain
(make-sbcl "sbcl-B" "ecl" ecl "clang")
`(("clang" ,clang-toolchain))))
(define-public sbcl-AA
(package-with-c-toolchain
(make-sbcl "sbcl-AA" "sbcl" sbcl-A "gcc")
`(("gcc" ,gcc-toolchain))))
(define-public sbcl-BB
(package-with-c-toolchain
(make-sbcl "sbcl-BB" "sbcl" sbcl-B "clang")
`(("clang" ,clang-toolchain))))
(define-public sbcl-CC
(package-with-c-toolchain
(make-sbcl "sbcl-CC" "sbcl" sbcl-A "clang")
`(("clang" ,clang-toolchain))))
(define-public sbcl-DD
(package-with-c-toolchain
(make-sbcl "sbcl-DD" "sbcl" sbcl-B "gcc")
`(("gcc" ,gcc-toolchain))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.
Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 14:32:37 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 10:32:37 2020
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50170 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1kVFAK-0003J7-UV
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:32:37 -0400
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:47957)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <mail@HIDDEN>) id 1kVFAJ-0003ED-0G
for 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:32:35 -0400
X-Originating-IP: 90.92.160.122
Received: from mimimi (lfbn-idf2-1-1094-122.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr
[90.92.160.122]) (Authenticated sender: mail@HIDDEN)
by relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 384B2E0014;
Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:32:26 +0000 (UTC)
From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN>
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN>, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: SBCL is not reproducible
In-Reply-To: <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai>
References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:32:26 +0200
Message-ID: <87v9f3zm2t.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> writes: > IIRC, SBCL
itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled > using another Common
Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then > the complete SBCL is
compiled using the core compiled [...]
Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[217.70.183.196 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
[URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)]
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112
Cc: 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
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: 2.5 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> writes: > IIRC, SBCL
itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled > using another Common
Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then > the complete SBCL is
compiled using the core compiled [...]
Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[217.70.183.196 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
[URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)]
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD
-1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
manager
1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> writes:
> IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled
> using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then
> the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled in stage 1.
Yes, this is correct.
=2D-=20
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl+QRnoSHG1haWxAYW1i
cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/QpAH/jDzZbTf5c7Q9zoLt1O/TGkZkDfIXxqV
g/mM32PO9o1w9oSepAHxSC3uubcXi+kx7FhIdOhHKKFOtARx+mqTElH5qq1N3OGs
AaKDEuy6lPY/kijbEHsy1FHZw5Swvww6Vf0qwHkp8CFFGdr9jEh57LMf1TQ1T+hc
pWbUJ9yAuVhNUhX0Fa82cqiah0dB9QWO0/NXPM9VZU5asvs1Yt1DzreeAVpFFb/e
6OZYfq/q3nlBNYyORupj1aN+Z4+aUr4kr6L9CvmKb+Yy/cJJd5fUIsjgt09QcWem
JZrQ/3I6/MUhJgMxY7xr2L/IIZ3VFm6C2wrcg5DReMOofb/MxJ71DGM=
=0cXn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.
Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 14:32:17 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 10:32:16 2020
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50167 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1kVFA0-00035h-NK
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:32:16 -0400
Received: from relay2-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.194]:50789)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <mail@HIDDEN>) id 1kVF9y-0002zV-Hw
for 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:32:15 -0400
X-Originating-IP: 90.92.160.122
Received: from mimimi (lfbn-idf2-1-1094-122.w90-92.abo.wanadoo.fr
[90.92.160.122]) (Authenticated sender: mail@HIDDEN)
by relay2-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A57340009;
Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:32:07 +0000 (UTC)
From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN>
To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>, Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3okZ1z0=jp8b=g4bqq=_=2yJk-z+McJ8PVcdy00cY2nwcyjg@HIDDEN>
References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai>
<CAJ3okZ1i-OqjjypxYeOcqXpxzAjKVHb9NUq7Gm4FQ76K8RbCmg@HIDDEN>
<CAJ3okZ1z0=jp8b=g4bqq=_=2yJk-z+McJ8PVcdy00cY2nwcyjg@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 16:32:06 +0200
Message-ID: <87y2jzzm3d.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> writes: > In addition, GCC
is also involved in the party. And I have also > replaced it by Clang with
the same effect. Where?
Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[217.70.183.194 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
[URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)]
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112
Cc: 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
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: 2.5 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> writes: > In addition, GCC
is also involved in the party. And I have also > replaced it by Clang with
the same effect. Where?
Content analysis details: (2.5 points, 10.0 required)
pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3)
[217.70.183.194 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs
[URI: ambrevar.xyz (xyz)]
0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders
0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD
-1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
manager
1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD
--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> writes:
> In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also
> replaced it by Clang with the same effect.
Where?
=2D-=20
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQFGBAEBCAAwFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl+QRmcSHG1haWxAYW1i
cmV2YXIueHl6AAoJEJvc9Jeku8x/iUEH/j0PGRqFHvUFRCVpmoyk/pZ+NOnBsLqE
7hbPN9ab3bed4PWF/oiEOAsX7bX2BMnYr0nFIMEreRtgqGsOq8R4xet7ERNr2pqr
er2RHfQBdig/VuGpVFxHO6wd1UlRU+MTS/ma8rN7imzEF5CriYImmExXs7RYV9EX
4g2YDL4+7ksdgz2CGHh1bu8trs/PvJuN4p+V4/s512hxqJ8k08shTK8iq0NEivh8
bPUgB4zCVICt+g2x2XSASb4rifGOTArOGBsECiolYsydtWmgyYW+DN0KMhj8QKsn
p+rmooTyQDYt/BsMYXd5q/WVFgpsM37N0SnHzqO6dmX3BYPFeEvMisc=
=Wdr8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 13:43:44 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 09:43:44 2020 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48280 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1kVEP2-0007wB-FA for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:43:44 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f170.google.com ([209.85.222.170]:33158) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>) id 1kVEOz-0007vy-Vu for 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:43:42 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f170.google.com with SMTP id v200so2499706qka.0 for <44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:43:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ia2GeFzWFh0hWTkQOFeOT/2ELIFkCQdCLk4T6Hp2Gak=; b=RwaKDg+nftv57JcftUnoVx+QoE2eRvR9qk3GINwJkkiz/5f1ns1m7fqCOdzx+P8reT s44SqJRqujsqApr7R8xD2WUcP2YZK3rkagBvnXnNQLkrgPqTzLNXpQGR+Xch/ZdRBzaF kDupGIVRoOuC/ygiWnb60Iih3IfLeAcdHjkNZHG8i0hzCITqHv09yItE60SaGY02zJev y3PoOrQ5rS1syZmYIyxL8lWAII29xyRbO4BRyghT3q8FWNzxM04dni3SKJwcKU30Ctuh 8Bzk2z9Hw8XNAC3APYANbCrMTsdDk3g10t4/ISQi3G+mKCZG0RsLkGDcmX6LamZSVxjd 7FeA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ia2GeFzWFh0hWTkQOFeOT/2ELIFkCQdCLk4T6Hp2Gak=; b=d5Wjhto249VdvkeLMYh2xnYv6QkMR44jbw3zFylxgFtUbA/d9lwzrkcP7VW/NvWTS7 IxAbu3NE5mX6V5PWa9MqL4XcrHZwfKOGYju/q6qX3Xb4im+oub6B6Ufbehezw5xdA+ma T+M6XH9OTOEF0PvQiu4zMhMsl5Fy6Aqf9Uc9wgSXJ7Ao4y00kJQpo1EM6g0R7jWVGzDn 3Ss1weY6wrnPjRqV3TIrUx1Ne4P/lvcX6UR+2azEEpjCYXsktToUbGBM5kFdj0QccNaj 4CNFDXllRH0g0MLYau5MfSnWDabxz0I0Nv8ohOFZShu6Svuh3hGo0v862KAG17p64WhS QWqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531xUxGECZc0NA9EXtjMT40O45qZlhAy9T6eMJHJOnR4bXp7TlzF ztZpvpJX8k5K8aG/WTidXqKPu/7HyyfkEC1mHCo= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsvhvseEli5zBzJ+hsVE2sl/F1OrzQbwqPrs/G0Lj3700BxIhDWza2wkyrkXsyBfBzxFoLRPNIbaQPIEdnSCk= X-Received: by 2002:a37:9a89:: with SMTP id c131mr3113767qke.80.1603287816418; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:43:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> <CAJ3okZ1i-OqjjypxYeOcqXpxzAjKVHb9NUq7Gm4FQ76K8RbCmg@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <CAJ3okZ1i-OqjjypxYeOcqXpxzAjKVHb9NUq7Gm4FQ76K8RbCmg@HIDDEN> From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:43:24 +0200 Message-ID: <CAJ3okZ1z0=jp8b=g4bqq=_=2yJk-z+McJ8PVcdy00cY2nwcyjg@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#44112: SBCL is not reproducible To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN> 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: -1.0 (-) On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:39, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> wrote: > > IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled > > using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then > > the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled in stage 1. There > > is probably also an embedded timestamp issue here (coming for clisp, > > from SBCL, or both) causing the reproducibility issue. In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also replaced it by Clang with the same effect. Cheers, simon
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.
Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 13:38:06 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 09:38:06 2020
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48276 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1kVEJT-0007nb-H6
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:38:06 -0400
Received: from mail-qt1-f177.google.com ([209.85.160.177]:43621)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>) id 1kVEJR-0007nP-Sc
for 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:37:58 -0400
Received: by mail-qt1-f177.google.com with SMTP id e6so2041877qtw.10
for <44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=46kcHOIprDXCztxU8K5v0bqnB3v+YEx/EPcrb0WQ2GI=;
b=sV+8DNjjqFk2rQI9W/etnSC0yCgm1rGNGAYb6o5yDumhQVfPDXXNOakGxoBTiXM+f4
PhGO3mfr6MoIDShZTSqs4T2x4V+Q1R0xywZ4Qf8RUtHbZnJiWUPTzTUDSgoFZKVxuLsq
gM4n43JYSvokSEwl/5b4xK3tho+IwMRL4E3opkNyIVuwhPalmzWaM46WTKEus0du3O5M
9e3G7kSEfpkx0K1Lcu+jyH5Rky3203QUf/P/cAv9ZoTTIacCm5DT6dM/djhTvU1iDkCK
bdxv8Y359s+O3l4D/2hqyAtGciiu8W4BBfhWfWhSX2G8fDJqJ4ywE8zV/IDnUozXsOrw
RcBA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=46kcHOIprDXCztxU8K5v0bqnB3v+YEx/EPcrb0WQ2GI=;
b=q66ZHVMpm1k3dqP9xMfgA8GIVK+Rpxn8wXlt1CCnkLPGQ3mkxLDUedXO7xLvLiMuS2
3vOeHI5HYWvLqqou6YjFnCC20w3S8DgUuCI9MMemgNwEGBO3fO0alH/hpyx9/ayiAp4u
rL1U+/KouILhKmL9jwUGLqUAXmHUNXvFZVUIHOMHJwyffb453fxrSd6gJB5k4lz11VBu
VvsQ+Pf8qeeicMrWuBnDpkEbVZzH/zjnTs1OXMTGY+w6ucpN2dZLjYL09uaXDL6QfXVA
HQmsEjUxTa0Dfp5v7iulSVBVvxjDAZTljhXzQwF9oI899g3VWpG5Nqbzgh1I36aaE4An
orzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533mf4GDEVzOoa/XmDmY1drZAGnBk/GEnzrjcKtAjsE5wbrQViP1
d1D9MFosI8ral6yeXjyWK2y0m0kEVk8z1FsXrgjP9YiZ
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxvuWMUBOiq/ZFpGVEvNPicf89p7FEaHCJNHNdDbIsrG73tX+7ss3DqwWY+NNhelK5Frg/IBoJFYlyXSmTHJA4=
X-Received: by 2002:aed:3b2a:: with SMTP id p39mr2960022qte.211.1603287472272;
Wed, 21 Oct 2020 06:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai>
In-Reply-To: <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai>
From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:37:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJ3okZ1i-OqjjypxYeOcqXpxzAjKVHb9NUq7Gm4FQ76K8RbCmg@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: SBCL is not reproducible
To: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112
Cc: 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN>
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: -1.0 (-)
Hi,
Thank you for the explanations.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 14:42, Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> wrote:
> However, some packages generate some source files at build time, usually
> containing things like data type sizes fetched from system header in
> order to use C libraries with FFI. The timestamp of a generated file
> is the current time, therefore the build is not reproducible.
This is an issue. Do you think it is affordable to fix these
timestamps to 1970-01-01?
> IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled
> using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then
> the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled in stage 1. There
> is probably also an embedded timestamp issue here (coming for clisp,
> from SBCL, or both) causing the reproducibility issue.
Yes. But I have replaced this "clisp" by ECL or by SBCL itself.
Still unreproducible.
Out-of-scope with this bug report, my aim is to have a fixed point:
- first compile SBCL with CLISP (using the 2 stages you describe):
produce SBCL-A
- second recompile SBCL with the previous SBCL-A (again using the 2
stages): produce SBCL-B
- third recompile SBCL with the previous SBCL-B (again using the 2
stages): produces SBCL-C
The binary SBCL-A is not deterministic probably because of CLISP (and
CLISP should be fixed but that's another story :-)).
However, SBCL-B and SBCL-C must be deterministic. And ideally
bit-to-bit identical but that's another story. :-)
And they are not; from my experiments at least.
Even, you could do the same procedure replacing CLISP by ECL,
producing SBCL-{A,B,C}-bis. Then SBCL-C and SBCL-C-bis should be
bit-to-bit identical.
> Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify
> things. Maybe nothing really depends on it and it would be possible...
Thanks for the explanation.
All the best,
simon
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.Received: (at 44112) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 12:42:13 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 08:42:13 2020 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48191 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1kVDRU-0004Hk-PN for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:42:12 -0400 Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:45315) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <glv@HIDDEN>) id 1kVDRS-0004HU-M9 for 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:42:11 -0400 Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA15B16005C for <44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:42:03 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1603284123; bh=276oL5fh8mqzxrflYSv0Fyqq8my1k60IU3yeBUILI9E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=Mu0POkjzmLXGeaj+HoCYDAaOFms8L7bXdxTNu3TIQnSyVgs2g/DLE0BqQAJEKhrSA 6YJJZ46vd1vnKgXz0Lw3r1Wp8pKNHiEE5doQyLywb/qOQTvIctXbABGGxEizYTE/Bu 9kyXU8L3wQrDS0W55Sw9VVtKVq1EhpUSwnmKdv/fHzcB+tQcV0Hk+mSu5Wc911CNNv meWA8M6ufGH9PIOwZdCEDNfNhTFniGoq0kj6mVEI1fotpc8PC79rWZAHmTEgGtJUgQ JHhZCEYh1shFNrfcklcgS+Rm1ZjldMeaKW6XaKQH6nzVfCARkhfYrzUN9zhbnGfU9j e5hhUltm5nE5A== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4CGVVx3Vlnz6tml; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:42:01 +0200 (CEST) References: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.1 From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@HIDDEN> To: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: SBCL is not reproducible In-reply-to: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:41:48 +0200 Message-ID: <87wnzjzr77.fsf@yamatai> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 44112 Cc: 44112 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN> 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: -3.3 (---) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN> skribis: > Using Guix 58af4c9, the package =E2=80=99sbcl=E2=80=99 seems not-reproduc= ible. > > [...] > > I do not know if the patches in =E2=80=99staging=E2=80=99 will fix this. > > Note that this issue does not imply that the build system > =E2=80=99asdf-build-system/sbcl=E2=80=99 is or will be not reproducible. = However, this > issues cuts any Diverse Double Compiling attempt. IIRC, when compiling, SBCL puts the timestamp of the source file in the compiled file. It's not a problem when just doing basic compilation because the source files' timestamps have been set to "1970-01-01". However, some packages generate some source files at build time, usually containing things like data type sizes fetched from system header in order to use C libraries with FFI. The timestamp of a generated file is the current time, therefore the build is not reproducible. IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled in stage 1. There is probably also an embedded timestamp issue here (coming for clisp, from SBCL, or both) causing the reproducibility issue. The patches currently in the staging branch don't have any effect on the generation of source files or on the format of the compiled files, so they will not help with this issue. Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify things. Maybe nothing really depends on it and it would be possible... --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iIUEAREKAC0WIQTLxZxm7Ce5cXlAaz5r6CCK3yH+PwUCX5AsjA8cZ2x2QHBvc3Rl by5uZXQACgkQa+ggit8h/j9+WwD+NUWl7DQqk48V2PntLTM52xYfpmiBplWDSMrC LBPgUYoA/1/e0p1lr5TV7cG9BJSmZzTHBubCEHDSIaRRyproDyuo =M569 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--
bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.
Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Oct 2020 08:12:23 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 21 04:12:23 2020
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47772 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1kV9EN-0001GN-FG
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:12:23 -0400
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:58932)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>) id 1kV9EM-0001GG-4t
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:12:22 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:40646)
by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>)
id 1kV9EL-0000tx-WA
for bug-guix@HIDDEN; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:12:22 -0400
Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]:40846)
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>)
id 1kV9EI-0001JD-76
for bug-guix@HIDDEN; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 04:12:21 -0400
Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id h5so1912481wrv.7
for <bug-guix@HIDDEN>; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 01:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=cbHYGB51Iroq46kiDZ3vjZ6334M79H340pSei5uUptM=;
b=pCSJ1/yZwzRrVe7QvNDAqTlw0CPx5SIt6dRLp1gH4bFt7NtUTAJPSl0wGf3W+hiIdL
6DNXVqHX9/Uqxxq+/bUWuwDORPXPcosgQfZq16sMs9NfAjsJXVPdUupL1wrurGU6Yssi
08kFvbMuZZr25ef3KClmCN2+VrCvVIUT/kkyhknnJnrxiOOcjuRP6Fh6B/sDK+C55/jB
sVsxcN2gdGFitBfkqEq+Q1h/WQtLZ/IeeHnInjZlnx1yGLzoUA4E7ZMclNnXs+gZZ5ab
o+hnSEIKq65wP/MXPGqwCeCWvm3pJo5lneloK2iGg75fAMlvmMTDYzowlAioqrRwRdXL
SX8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=cbHYGB51Iroq46kiDZ3vjZ6334M79H340pSei5uUptM=;
b=dmt85YNIWs7vQro2TIpu6uheeqRloIFOTLM1ZKvyuGSy2aIABhKMqjecW5gS6oACbD
eHONSOosRKWfI0xKmvXWH36Kf4Q5DK+/qpAgvWYL7j0TVRBi7et0xXsrB0t4C1NcRaAP
FSCxwnrhDIUtD4G+kAKib5+5DFsASu7NQOQs8i7sO7M/utKZ19Tv/05GIIga6N5hzneY
FmTwBcbeWkyWyyfRYUeGuUoeK93S+rbId308VnjFo3DLE0BTRzSHdn16a0YFc4qxaoWb
ozlaUzyGxWvP0qLM4aNBl0Y0yzBcdNkiSEKDWfCROYnhDHYbwc84zc9KIY8qM6v7X32v
3wag==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531vnRHasmwu5cucRewsKPKmkKcNeV4+7zlwgGX/IAl7B8XlsKQD
YPCSuvQuvuObhR3z13iDyPo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxKhxatJIYSLMAbcE/xrTPZxsgvj612RII729F1+NChWekkBrg2iUJ/3Ly2KXYAzQbAtmyDGg==
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f584:: with SMTP id f4mr3088891wro.383.1603267936171;
Wed, 21 Oct 2020 01:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e])
by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x18sm2586164wrg.4.2020.10.21.01.12.15
(version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
Wed, 21 Oct 2020 01:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>
To: bug-guix@HIDDEN
Subject: SBCL is not reproducible
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 10:12:14 +0200
Message-ID: <86o8kw80bl.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42d;
envelope-from=zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN; helo=mail-wr1-x42d.google.com
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache.
That's all we know.
X-Spam_score_int: -20
X-Spam_score: -2.1
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
Cc: glv@HIDDEN, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@HIDDEN>
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: -2.3 (--)
Dear,
Using Guix 58af4c9, the package =E2=80=99sbcl=E2=80=99 seems not-reproducib=
le.
The output of =E2=80=9Cguix challenge=E2=80=9D is:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
differing files:
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-rt.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/uiop.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-cover.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-capstone.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-executable.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-bsd-sockets.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-simple-streams.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-queue.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-gmp.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-aclrepl.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-sprof.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-grovel.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-posix.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/asdf.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-mpfr.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-cltl2.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-concurrency.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-md5.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-introspect.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-rotate-byte.fasl
/lib/sbcl/sbcl.core
/bin/sbcl
/share/sbcl/src/runtime/coreparse.o
/share/sbcl/src/runtime/sbcl
1 store items were analyzed:
- 0 (0.0%) were identical
- 1 (100.0%) differed
- 0 (0.0%) were inconclusive
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
which is confirmed by the experimental Data Service webpage:
https://data.guix-patches.cbaines.net/revision/4e0498c4d3f5ef03ac5afa4a3e57=
0205c10c28c5/package-derivation-outputs?search_query=3Dsbcl&output_consiste=
ncy=3Dnot-matching&system=3Dx86_64-linux&target=3Dnone&after_path=3D&limit_=
results=3D&all_results=3Don
I do not know if the patches in =E2=80=99staging=E2=80=99 will fix this.
Note that this issue does not imply that the build system
=E2=80=99asdf-build-system/sbcl=E2=80=99 is or will be not reproducible. H=
owever, this
issues cuts any Diverse Double Compiling attempt.
All the best,
simon
zimoun <zimon.toutoune@HIDDEN>:bug-guix@HIDDEN.
Full text available.bug-guix@HIDDEN:bug#44112; Package guix.
Full text available.
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.