Re: 31/31: DRAFT gnu: bootstrap: Add support for the Hurd.

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>]

Ludovic Courtès writes:

Hello Ludo' and All,

>>     DRAFT gnu: bootstrap: Add support for the Hurd.
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -378,18 +394,40 @@ or false to signal an error."
>>                    (rename-file guile guile-real)
>>                    (call-with-output-file guile
>>                      (lambda (p)
>> -                      (format p "\
>> +                      (format p ,(if (equal? (or (%current-target-system)
>> +                                                 (%current-system)) "i586-gnu") "\
>> +#!~a
>> +export GUILE_SYSTEM_PATH=~a/share/guile/2.2
>> +export GUILE_SYSTEM_COMPILED_PATH=~a/lib/guile/2.2/ccache
>> +exec -a \"~a0\" ~a \"~a@\"\n"
>> +                                     "\
>>  #!~a
>>  export GUILE_SYSTEM_PATH=~a/share/guile/2.0
>>  export GUILE_SYSTEM_COMPILED_PATH=~a/lib/guile/2.0/ccache
>>  exec -a \"~a0\" ~a \"~a@\"\n"
>> +
>> +)
>>                                bash out out dollar guile-real dollar)))
>>                    (chmod guile   #o555)
>>                    (chmod bin-dir #o555))))))
>
> For the sake of reducing complexity and keeping supported systems as
> close to one another as possible, would it be an option to keep using
> 2.0 for GNU/Hurd, like on the other systems?

I'm pretty sure that will work; I have a patch set to do that somewhere.

> That would entail changing make-bootstrap.scm to use 2.0 instead of 2.2
> as a first step.  And yeah, it’d also entail another full rebuild, which
> I’m sorry for, but I think this kind of simplification pays off quickly.
>
> WDYT?

Yes, let's do that.  I'll also want to look at using gcc-5, that may
solve our libstdc++-boot0/gcc-boot0 problem.  I think it's weird that we
build gcc-7 by default as bootstrap binary, while using that may not
even work (and is certainly untested).

> (I vaguely remember discussing it before but I forgot the outcome of the
> discussion.  Apologies for that!)

Yes, we discussed it...my focus at the time however was rather that 2.0
might be necessary, but that moving to 2.2 might be preferred (for
Guix'y reasons or possibly Hurd'y reasons -- I forgot).

FWIW, yes the rebuilds are annoying but I find managing/juggling
different working setups especially cumbersome.  A rebuild takes about a
half a day round-trip time and during that I'm also doing development.
I want to test smaller changes but am also making changes that will
trigger another rebuild.  Also, I don't want to lose my last working
setup (VM+git).  For that I'm creating many branches, tagged with
numbers (wip-hurd0, wip-hurd-system3; etc), which "works" but...  Just
wondering how you all handle this kind of thing.

Greetings,
janneke

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com