From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Subject: Re: 31/31: DRAFT gnu: bootstrap: Add support for the Hurd. Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:41:48 +0100 Message-ID: <87eetxrjtv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20200312065852.10633.59398@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200312065911.D981520B7E@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <874kuuvt9m.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 ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59646) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jCKLf-00016g-DV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2020 05:41:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <874kuuvt9m.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 12 Mar 2020 10:04:21 +0100") 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-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ludovic Court=C3=A8s 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-syste= m) >> + (%current-system)) "i5= 86-gnu") "\ >> +#!~a >> +export GUILE_SYSTEM_PATH=3D~a/share/guile/2.2 >> +export GUILE_SYSTEM_COMPILED_PATH=3D~a/lib/guile/2.2/ccache >> +exec -a \"~a0\" ~a \"~a@\"\n" >> + "\ >> #!~a >> export GUILE_SYSTEM_PATH=3D~a/share/guile/2.0 >> export GUILE_SYSTEM_COMPILED_PATH=3D~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=E2=80=99d also entail another full rebuild= , which > I=E2=80=99m sorry for, but I think this kind of simplification pays off q= uickly. > > 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 --=20 Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar=C2=AE http://AvatarAcademy.com