Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add Mlucas.

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hi!

Alex Vong <alexvong1995@gmail.com> skribis:

> On 06/10/2015, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

[...]

>> It’s not uncommon, indeed.  However, the details on how to bootstrap are
>> not standard: Often ‘autoreconf -vfi’ will do, sometimes it’s
>> ‘./bootstrap’, sometimes ‘./autogen.sh’, etc.
>>
>> Now the proposed build system could maybe try these variants one after
>> the other.
>>
>> Also, the set of dependencies varies: sometimes it’s Autoconf, sometimes
>> Autoconf+Automake, sometimes Autoconf+Automake+Libtool, etc.  So I think
>> the set of dependencies should be kept explicit–i.e., packages have to
>> add stuff to ‘native-inputs’.
>>
>> Could you try to make this build system as a standalone commit, leaving
>> out the build flags code for a separate discussion?
>>
>> The commit would add (guix build-system gnu-bootstrap) for instance (I
>> call it this way because it bootstraps specifically the GNU build
>> system, not CMake, etc.) and (guix build gnu-bootstrap-build-system).
>> The latter would simply add one phase to ‘%standard-phases’.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
> I think if the set of dependencies should be kept explicit, then it
> seems the only thing we are left to abstract away is trying the
> commands ``autoreconf -vfi'', ``./bootstrap'' and ``./autogen.sh''.
> But I think the command is better left for the package maintainer to
> decide since the bootstrap script may have unusual name. (I have seen
> ``bootstrap.sh'' for instance.) My original though is to let the
> package maintainer to pass in the bootstrap command string. However,
> if it is the case, then gnu-bootstrap build-system isn't abstracting
> anything at all. So I think I'll go back to the original solution of
> adding a new phase and specifying autotools dependencies instead.

Yeah, makes sense.  A phase that guesses the command to run may still
save a few lines here and there, but I agree that it may not be that
beneficial overall.

Thanks,
Ludo’.