From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz>
Subject: Re: Using CLISP instead of CCL to bootstrap SBCL
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:39:04 +0200
Message-ID: <87o9079hef.fsf@ambrevar.xyz>
References: <87d0gnljf6.fsf@netris.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
 micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38725)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <mail@ambrevar.xyz>) id 1i3cR8-0003WO-LA
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 04:39:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <mail@ambrevar.xyz>) id 1i3cR5-0002AD-SB
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 04:39:13 -0400
Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198]:53357)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <mail@ambrevar.xyz>) id 1i3cR5-0001wQ-Fl
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 04:39:11 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87d0gnljf6.fsf@netris.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
 <guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Mark,

First of all, thanks for your interest in Next! :)

If you look at the sbcl package, you'll see this comment which I
copy-pasted from SBCL "INSTALL" file:

=2D-8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
     ;; From INSTALL:
     ;;     Supported build hosts are:
     ;;       SBCL
     ;;       CMUCL
     ;;       CCL (formerly known as OpenMCL)
     ;;       ABCL (recent versions only)
     ;;       CLISP (only some versions: 2.44.1 is OK, 2.47 is not)
     ;;       XCL
=2D-8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

The point was 2-fold:

=2D CLISP seems unreliable.
=2D SBCL takes ages to compile with it :p  (I know, this is mostly practica=
l.)

We can ask the SBCL developers to let us know if they think CLISP can be
re-approved, but as far as I understand, it's mostly untested.

Another solution would be to bootstrap SBCL or CCL
differently.  I haven't looked into the details, but there may be some
older version of CCL or SBCL that could be build from C or CLISP
reliably, then use those versions to build the latest CCL and SBCL.

I can look into maybe later next week (no promise, September is going to
be tight for me).

Cheers!

=2D-=20
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAl1o4KgACgkQm9z0l6S7
zH+ANwf/YapQNWZ4IFRZchlLvujmjutaouHc0SOEFM3whm9OGp0RljG40RtPxdY5
u/W9YWwMtAyXjHen88964y/Gx8bqf4tV5W1mdeWj02wpvCW6Yc13b7zs8XYV2TG9
KOC6mzZfeEHx5PA8Jm+dsImal3ZNi+3plTy3L1ZRK1jIly4qcW89btv+v5wvh7nM
Ng5eSw6SXW4qXUrpgkDZ/rVJhahSkW/qeNECrDS9m1l5OG7ZvyLRiT6vrBEz5kxe
nipvPnjCiP+FImTDjcScbsgGtfmML9XHgkH9gZLXQGVgcArgaHPTtEOA2BTSnT7H
7QPP36l7xJGw8lwmgQ1NYZAHJQ3Ntg==
=5dMI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--