From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Removing compilers that cannot be bootstrapped Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:11:26 -0400 Message-ID: <20160324031126.GA22569@jasmine> References: <87twjz4fcn.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9fyw3j8.fsf@dustycloud.org> <87bn64u9mc.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh58izcy.fsf@dustycloud.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46833) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aivgD-00089x-63 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:11:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aivgB-0004gv-Er for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:11:25 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:50251) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aivgB-0004eU-BU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:11:23 -0400 Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 800FC2095C for ; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:11:21 -0400 (EDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87lh58izcy.fsf@dustycloud.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Christopher Allan Webber Cc: guix-devel On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:49:33PM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > > > Christopher Allan Webber skribis: > > > >> Let me give an even shorter-term solution: maybe there is a way to mark > >> things as risky from a trust perspective when it comes to bootstrapping? > >> Maybe we could do something like: > >> > >> (define-public ghc > >> (package > >> (name "ghc") > >> (version "7.10.2") > >> ;; [... bla bla ...] > >> (properties '(("bootstrap-untrusted" #t))))) > > > > Why not, but what would be the correspond warning, and the expected > > effect? > > A warning, or maybe even also a: > > guix package -i foo --only-reproducible > > which could error? If we decide to do something like that, we should decide if we want the word 'reproducible' to mean bit-for-bit reproducibility. Personally, I think use of that word should include that meaning. > > > On one hand, a warning might annoy people since there’s nothing they can > > do; on the other hand, it can help raise awareness. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Ludo’. > >