Hi,
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 10:08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> I was thinking a second time about it and found that not only the newer
>> development of OpenJDK is on GitHub, but also the older versions are
>> available. So I could add another patch like this:
>>
>> + (method git-fetc
Hello,
Björn Höfling skribis:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 12:48:19 +0100
> Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>> Hi Björn,
>>
>> Björn Höfling skribis:
>>
>> > I will check the same for JDK10 and will prepare a patch within the
>> > next two days.
>>
>> Thanks for 7636c49b45adb9870cf416c64bde032ec858a820
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 12:48:19 +0100
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi Björn,
>
> Björn Höfling skribis:
>
> > I will check the same for JDK10 and will prepare a patch within the
> > next two days.
>
> Thanks for 7636c49b45adb9870cf416c64bde032ec858a820 and its parent
> commit!
>
> For the record,
I’m not sure why it uses these tarballs in the first place, since we
have a hg-download.
-> I guess a reason could be that downloading via hg is quite slow.
Thats at least my impression when fetching the "comm" repository for
Thunderbird with mecurial. Tarballs and git checkout tend to be way
fas
Hi Björn,
Björn Höfling skribis:
> I will check the same for JDK10 and will prepare a patch within the
> next two days.
Thanks for 7636c49b45adb9870cf416c64bde032ec858a820 and its parent
commit!
For the record, there are two remaining issues:
1. Reproducibility of past revisions. If we los
On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 22:00:21 +0100
Björn Höfling wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:48:53 +0100
> Lars-Dominik Braun wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > it looks like the (auto-generated) tarballs for openjdk@9 and
> > openjdk@10 changed their hash, causing a hash mismatch via
> >
> > guix build -S open
Hi,
On dim., 12 mars 2023 at 22:00, Björn Höfling
wrote:
> I compared for JDK9 the two tarballs (old and new hash) and there is no
> difference in the content (according to diffoscope). Also, if I
> hg-clone the repository/tag (and add the .hg_archival.txt file), all
> three directory trees hav
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:48:53 +0100
Lars-Dominik Braun wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it looks like the (auto-generated) tarballs for openjdk@9 and
> openjdk@10 changed their hash, causing a hash mismatch via
>
> guix build -S openjdk@9 --no-substitutes --no-grafts
>
> I’m not sure why it uses these tarba
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:48:53 +0100
Lars-Dominik Braun wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it looks like the (auto-generated) tarballs for openjdk@9 and
> openjdk@10 changed their hash, causing a hash mismatch via
>
> guix build -S openjdk@9 --no-substitutes --no-grafts
I can confirm this.
I found the old v
Hi,
it looks like the (auto-generated) tarballs for openjdk@9 and openjdk@10
changed their hash, causing a hash mismatch via
guix build -S openjdk@9 --no-substitutes --no-grafts
I’m not sure why it uses these tarballs in the first place, since we
have a hg-download.
Lars
10 matches
Mail list logo
