From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: Removing compilers that cannot be bootstrapped
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:22:35 -0400
Message-ID: <20160326002235.GA3676@jasmine>
References: <CAJ=RwfYrKDCbPLtQz7xrm9og7zE0BpTZ+jeX=hMvEpT4LW+hUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<87twjz4fcn.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9fyw3j8.fsf@dustycloud.org>
	<87bn64u9mc.fsf@gnu.org> <87lh58izcy.fsf@dustycloud.org>
	<20160324031126.GA22569@jasmine> <87d1qi40me.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43673)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1ajc06-0001JA-8Q
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:22:47 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1ajc01-0000Tw-B4
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:22:46 -0400
Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:60384)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1ajc00-0000Tq-P0
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:22:41 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87d1qi40me.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:08:09AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:49:33PM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> >> Ludovic Courtès writes:
> >> 
> >> > Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> 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?
> 
> Hmm or --only-traceable?
> 
> > If we decide to do something like that, we should decide if we want the
> > word 'reproducible' to mean bit-for-bit reproducibility.
> 
> The problem is that big binary blobs like GHC’s are necessarily
> bit-for-bit reproducible.  :-)

`wget https://blob` doesn't count as reproducible :)

Another useful word could be 'deterministic'.

> 
> Ludo’.