Re: bootstrap integration strategies

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>]

Ludovic Courtès writes:

>> So what I was saying is probably: we have x86 NOW, can we use it and do
>> we want that somehow?  OR do we plan some of the work above, and go that
>> route?
>
> I think we should try and use what we have now in ‘wip-bootstrap’, and
> keeps things unchanged for ARM and GNU/Hurd.  Ricardo?

Yes, let's also ask Ricardo.

>> Yes, performance is really the thing here.  Currently, mes is about 30x
>> slower than Guile.  It will definately not work if mes has to interpret
>> all of gnu/packages/*.scm, it may work if we can do something smart.
>
> No no, in my view we’d use Mes simply as the guile-for-build in the
> early derivations (the interpreter that runs the build phases from (guix
> build build-system)).

OK...

> It’s a job where we don’t need much performance, but we need the POSIX
> layer—‘system*’, (ice-9 ftw), and so on.

Mes has system*, no ice-9 ftw yet, not sure about the so on; adding
things like these should be fun though.

> My hesitation comes from the fact that this will increase maintenance
> cost on the Guix side.  At the same time, this is clearly the direction
> we want to take, and I such I think we have to get our act together and
> go forth.

Agreed.  That's important to keep an eye on.  A requirement for a
bootstrap process is also its transparency.

> What’s the exact status of ‘wip-bootstrap’ on non Intel arches?  Is it
> still like ‘master’?  If it is, that’s fine.

> Does it use the Mes/MesCC/tcc path for i686 only, or is it i686 +
> x86_64?  (I would expect the latter.)

I haven't started integrating the bootprocess at all, not even for
i686/x86_64; there's only an alternative path to build gcc-4.7.4 atm.
That i686x86 gcc can be built on i686 and x86_64:

   ./pre-inst-env guix build gcc-mesboot

it's advisable to set

    (define %fake-bootstrap? #t)  ; cheat using Guile instead of Mes for speed-up?

in gnu/packages/mes.scm at first; set it to #f later and let it run
overnight :-)

> If there are no regressions, I’d be willing to simply merge it in
> core-updates.  I’d like some of us to take another look at it—Ricardo,
> Mark, and anyone with an interest in this.  And then I guess we could
> go.
>
> How does that sound?

That's really great...but we need integration work into the x86
bootstrap first too.  Do you/Ricardo want to help with that too?

> Thank you for your patience!

Thanks for your help and support!
janneke.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com