From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCHES] gnu: linux-libre: Update to 4.16 Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 17:38:48 +0200 Message-ID: <87in90ie47.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87fu467tkb.fsf@netris.org> <20180407210616.GA4069@jasmine.lan> <87k1ticxl7.fsf@netris.org> <87zi2dsp7y.fsf@netris.org> <878t9xnrnu.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]:33713) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5Ysh-0007nh-UI for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 11:38:56 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5Yse-0004hW-Qz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 11:38:55 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]:37652) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f5Yse-0004gF-Ky for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 11:38:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <878t9xnrnu.fsf@gmail.com> (Chris Marusich's message of "Sun, 08 Apr 2018 17:35:01 -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" To: Chris Marusich Cc: guix-devel 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 to b= e 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? Ludo=E2=80=99.