On Thu, 07 Oct 2021 18:07:16 +0200 Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi! > > zimoun <[email protected]> skribis: > > > Euh, I do not understand. From bug#43442 [1] on Wed, 16 Sep 2020, > > Scotch was not missing. And from [2] neither. > > > > Nah, the hole is the (double) update (from 6.0.6 to 6.1.0 then > > 6.1.1) without manually taking care of this bug report; by > > switching from url-fetch to git-fetch for instance. Somehow, it > > was bounded to happen because we lack automatic tools despite the > > fact they are there. > > > > Indeed, hard to believe. :-) > > I guess, in our mind, the problem was fixed long ago. :-) > > > As I am asking in this thread [3], the Guix project has the > > ressource, storage speaking, to archive these tarballs -- waiting a > > robust long-term automatic system. But we (the Guix projet) cannot > > because we duplicate the effort on keeping twice all the build > > outputs. Somehow, between Berlin and Bordeaux, coherent policies > > for conservancy are missing. IMHO. > > So I think we’re lucky that we can try different solutions at once. > > The best solution is the one that won’t rely solely on the Guix > project: SWH + Disarchive. We’re getting there! > > The second-best solution is to improve our tooling so we can actually > keep source code in a more controlled way. That’s what I had in mind > with <https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/source>. We have storage space > for that on berlin, but it’s not infinite. > > Another approach is to use ‘git-fetch’ more, at least for > non-Autotools packages (that’s the case for Scotch, for instance.) Out of curiosity, why only non-autotools?
