Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:

> Since the GCC build procedure is performed at least two
> times (once with the bootstrap compiler, and then again with the GCC
> variant this produces), the resulting GCC binaries should be identical.
>
> Except that they are not.  One of the reasons is that the binaries
> that Guix produces embed the target output directories.  This means
> that the two compiler binaries that result from diverse double
> compilation will *always* differ in at least the embedded paths, such
> as paths to itself (e.g. to binaries in the libexec directory) and
> paths to.

What ever happened to the intensional model (i.e., a content-addressed
store)?  If derivation outputs were content-addressed, this would not be
a problem, right?

Dolstra's thesis presented some ideas for how to rewrite self-references
in derivation outputs under the intensional model.  I've casually looked
into what happened with the intensional model since his thesis was
written, but I don't really know why it hasn't been implemented.  All I
know is that Dolstra and the Nix devs seem to have moved away from that
idea; I never really learned the reason(s) why.

-- 
Chris