[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a worka
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround? |
Date: |
Fri, 15 Jan 2021 21:48:20 +0100 |
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 21:18, Wiktor Żelazny <wz@freeshell.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 09:29:48PM +0100, zimoun wrote:
>> you will not get the exact R packages as they were at the time of
>> d81fb2a;
>
> Can you, please, elaborate on that? Do you mean by that that the
> different r-foreign will result in a different r, and that will
Yes. Bit-to-bit different but you can expect functionally similar.
> propagate to the packages, as they depend on r? But R does not compile
> the R code in the packages while they are being installed, does it? Am I
> missing something? If it were the issue wouldn’t it occur also in your
> `./pre-inst-env` approach?
Same root of problem, same consequence. :-)
This upstream bad practise is not fixable; whatever the mean.
> A new idea: I just checked “CRAN Time Machine” at MRAN. The tarball with
> the 0g4mi101srjbl17ydb2hl3854m3xj0llj6861lfr30sp08nkqavl hash is there.
> I guess I can use `build --with-source=` now, maybe even `environment
> --with-source=r-foreign=`? Perhaps a more elegant solution would be to
> define r-foreign-fixed, as you describe above, yet this time leaving the
> hash, but changing the URL. Are there philosophical reasons for not
> using MRAN?
Oh, thanks for the pointer. Yeah, in this case it is possible to use
--with-source, maybe combined with another trick to populate your store
with the expected by d81fb2a tarball. And then simply use “guix
time-machine” as usual.
The API needs to be checked, maybe it should be possible to automatise
the fallback: try Guix build farm, then upstream, then SWH, then CRAN
for R build system. Maybe. :-)
All the best,
simon
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, (continued)
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, zimoun, 2021/01/13
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Leo Famulari, 2021/01/13
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Wiktor Żelazny, 2021/01/13
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Leo Famulari, 2021/01/13
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Wiktor Żelazny, 2021/01/14
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, zimoun, 2021/01/14
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Wiktor Żelazny, 2021/01/14
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, zimoun, 2021/01/14
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Wiktor Żelazny, 2021/01/15
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?,
zimoun <=
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Wiktor Żelazny, 2021/01/18
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Wiktor Żelazny, 2021/01/18
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Wiktor Żelazny, 2021/01/20
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, zimoun, 2021/01/20
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Wiktor Żelazny, 2021/01/20
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, zimoun, 2021/01/20
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, Wiktor Żelazny, 2021/01/22
- Re: guix time-machine, broken hash in an old package definition, a workaround?, zimoun, 2021/01/22