From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Subject: Re: Building Bash with Geesh Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2018 07:47:58 +0100 Message-ID: <877egko6ox.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87pnudwdda.fsf@ngyro.com> <87o99xp8mh.fsf@gnu.org> <87sgz9asgr.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:54786) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gVWPM-0006EB-P6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2018 01:48:13 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gVWPL-0001BE-Tu for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Dec 2018 01:48:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87sgz9asgr.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Fri, 07 Dec 2018 23:21:24 +0100") 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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: >>> =E2=80=A2 It requires Guile 2.2, while (I assume) the current boots= trap >>> Guile is version 2.0; >> >> That should be OK too, I'll leave Ludo' to comment on this, but Gash >> also needs Guile 2.2; on my Guix wip-bootstrap branch I already upgraded >> Guile. > > Which parts of 2.2 that 2.0 lacks does it need? PEG? I was a bit quick here, as I thought that we wanted to move to 2.2 anyway. Until recently we needed PEG, but Gash now includes a modified copy of it. So I suspect that staying on 2.0 for a bit might be feasible (I haven't looked at details). > Overall I=E2=80=99m in favor of changing the bootstrap seeds as rarely as > possible. Also, if our horizon is a full Scheme bootstrap has Jan > proposed (and I think that=E2=80=99s a great plan!), then perhaps we=E2= =80=99ll have to > arrange to not rely on fancy Guile features in build-side code meant to > run early on during bootstrap. So far it was easy to keep (guix build = =E2=80=A6)=20 > valid for both 2.2 and 2.0, but these are simple modules; I don=E2=80=99t= know > whether that=E2=80=99s reasonably feasible for more complex pieces of sof= tware > like Geesh and Gash. OK. In any case would be nice if the 2.0->2.2 upgrade can be a separate decision rather than a dependency for Gash (or Geesh). > All that said, the benefit of removing Bash from the seeds may well > outweigh the =E2=80=9Ccost=E2=80=9D of upgrading to Guile 2.2. That's great, we'll see! > It=E2=80=99d be great if both projects could converge; there=E2=80=99ll s= till be plenty > of challenges to satisfy your playfulness anyway. :-) (Like, say, a > shell=E2=86=92tree-il front-end, hint hint ;-)). Well, there's another challenge I have tried not to think of :) > That said I can imagine it=E2=80=99s not that easy and maybe also less fu= n but > it would help the longer-term goal of building a solid foundation for > bootstrapped distros. It's hard to see for me beyond the horizon of a Scheme-only bootstrap. Once we get there, we may want to make the bootstrap Scheme more tiny, either by making a more tiny, bootstrappable Guile or replacing Guile with Mes. > Anyway, kudos on these achievements! I guess we at least need Geesh and > Gash packages now! :-) Hehe, there's a Gash package on wip-bootstrap. However, Gash is still failing 19 (of 120) shell test; we'll want to fix those before releasing 0.1. Also the concept of `export' is missing entirely. janneke --=20 Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar=C2=AE http://AvatarAcademy.com