From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Allan Webber Subject: Re: Removing compilers that cannot be bootstrapped Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 15:49:33 -0700 Message-ID: <87lh58izcy.fsf@dustycloud.org> References: <87twjz4fcn.fsf@gnu.org> <87h9fyw3j8.fsf@dustycloud.org> <87bn64u9mc.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]:52398) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1airaq-0004kz-ME for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:49:37 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1airap-0005Ks-QF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:49:36 -0400 In-reply-to: <87bn64u9mc.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Christopher Allan Webber skribis: > >> Let me give an even shorter-term solution: maybe there is a way to mar= k >> things as risky from a trust perspective when it comes to bootstrappin= g? >> 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? A warning, or maybe even also a: guix package -i foo --only-reproducible which could error? > On one hand, a warning might annoy people since there=E2=80=99s nothing= they can > do; on the other hand, it can help raise awareness. > > Thoughts? > > Ludo=E2=80=99.