From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Removing compilers that cannot be bootstrapped Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:12:27 +0100 Message-ID: <87bn64u9mc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87twjz4fcn.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9fyw3j8.fsf@dustycloud.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]:44541) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1air14-0004WH-4Y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:12:38 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1air0z-0004mr-1l for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:12:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87h9fyw3j8.fsf@dustycloud.org> (Christopher Allan Webber's message of "Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:29:08 -0700") 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 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? On one hand, a warning might annoy people since there=E2=80=99s nothing the= y can do; on the other hand, it can help raise awareness. Thoughts? Ludo=E2=80=99.