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: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 00:08:09 +0100
Message-ID: <87d1qi40me.fsf@gnu.org>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34547)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1ajaq1-0007xY-9i
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:08:18 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1ajapw-0003KB-Kb
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:08:17 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20160324031126.GA22569@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Wed,
	23 Mar 2016 23:11:26 -0400")
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: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:49:33PM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes:
>>=20
>> > Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org> skribis:
>> >
>> >> Let me give an even shorter-term solution: maybe there is a way to ma=
rk
>> >> things as risky from a trust perspective when it comes to bootstrappi=
ng?
>> >> 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?
>>=20
>> A warning, or maybe even also a:
>>=20
>>   guix package -i foo --only-reproducible
>>=20
>> 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=E2=80=99s are necessarily
bit-for-bit reproducible.  :-)

Ludo=E2=80=99.