From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: [PATCHES] gnu: linux-libre: Update to 4.16 Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 10:56:08 +0200 Message-ID: <8736z1gqc7.fsf@elephly.net> References: <87fu467tkb.fsf@netris.org> <20180407210616.GA4069@jasmine.lan> <87k1ticxl7.fsf@netris.org> <87zi2dsp7y.fsf@netris.org> <878t9xnrnu.fsf@gmail.com> <87in90ie47.fsf@gnu.org> <8736z11g6k.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57907) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGL8N-0003fi-DB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 05:11:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGL8J-0005j4-9j for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 05:11:39 -0400 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21009) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGL8J-0005hW-0w for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 May 2018 05:11:35 -0400 In-reply-to: <8736z11g6k.fsf@gmail.com> 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" To: Chris Marusich Cc: guix-devel Chris Marusich writes: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> Hello, >> >> Chris Marusich skribis: >> >>> Mark H Weaver writes: >>> >>>> So, we still have a decision to make: whether to delete these generated >>>> files (possibly in a snippet) to avoid using pre-generated non-source >>>> files in our build. I would be in favor of it. >>>> >>>> I'd like to hear opinions on this. >> >> I=E2=80=99d be in favor of removing these, especially since that seems t= o be an >> easy change, but=E2=80=A6 >> >>> Perhaps we can consider our existing packages as a precedent. Many >>> packages include files in their source distribution that were >>> auto-generated by the Autotools. For example, consider the "configure" >>> script that Autoconf generates. Is there a significant difference >>> between the "configure" script and the "pre-generated non-source files" >>> you're talking about? >> >> Indeed, there=E2=80=99s a long tradition in GNU to ship generated code to >> facilitate bootstrapping. There=E2=80=99s configure, Makefile.in, etc.,= and >> there=E2=80=99s also Bison- and Flex-generated files often. >> >> I have mixed feelings about this. I think it=E2=80=99s great to be able= to use >> these pre-generated files; our bootstrap graph would be much more >> complicated or even out of reach if we were to re-generate everything. >> OTOH, it=E2=80=99s true that this is the elephant in the room in terms of >> bootstrapping. >> >> Maybe it=E2=80=99s a can of worms we=E2=80=99d rather leave aside. :-) >> >> Thoughts? > > Given the profound silence on this topic, I am inclined to agree with > you that it's a can of worms we'd rather leave aside. Therefore, I > think we should do whatever is most practical, so I am happy to defer to > Mark on this. If it's easy to remove the auto-generated files, I see no > reason for us to avoid removing them. If it's difficult to remove the > auto-generated files, I don't think we should bend over backwards to > remove them. I agree that this can be a case by case decision. In general I=E2=80=99d like *all* generated files to be rebuilt from source, including build system files. Since this can be problematic I=E2=80=99d ad= opt a pragmatic approach of removing and rebuiling generated files when it is clearly feasible. For things that are really difficult and seemingly hopeless we have the bootstrappable project. -- Ricardo