From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Preparing the reduced bootstrap tarballs Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 19:22:25 +0100 Message-ID: <87tvkgubku.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20181014085857.3863-1-janneke@gnu.org> <20181014085857.3863-3-janneke@gnu.org> <87r2gld3nt.fsf@gnu.org> <875zxxax4f.fsf@gnu.org> <87sh0z6m83.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftwz9e9y.fsf@gnu.org> <874ldccr9f.fsf@gnu.org> <87muqa4sn5.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87wopejqfa.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 ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41272) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNila-0004fL-UF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 13:22:55 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNilT-0004B7-Fh for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 13:22:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87wopejqfa.fsf@gnu.org> (Jan Nieuwenhuizen's message of "Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:44:57 +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.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hello! Jan Nieuwenhuizen skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > > Hi! > >> (This is a followup to .) > >> I (finally!) run =E2=80=9Cguix build bootstrap-tarballs=E2=80=9D on =E2= =80=98core-updates-next=E2=80=99, >> but that was a bit silly of me since that built the x86_64-linux >> tarballs=E2=80=94i.e., not the =E2=80=9Creduced seed.=E2=80=9D >> >> So I was about to re-run it with =E2=80=9C-s i686-linux=E2=80=9D, but I = noticed the >> following issue in (gnu packages make-bootstrap): >> >> (define %bootstrap-tarballs >> ;; A single derivation containing all the bootstrap tarballs, for >> ;; convenience. >> (package > > Ah right. I saw that several times but did not use it. I think because > initially it was of no use. It would be nice if this built everything > we need, I agree :-) Heheh. :-) It=E2=80=99s what the =E2=80=9CBuilding the Bootstrap Binaries= =E2=80=9D section describes. > Indeed. "mes-seed" and "tinycc-seed" are remnants of the past; the only > things we need are OK. >> What we would need here is something to build the things listed in >> =E2=80=98%bootstrap-inputs=E2=80=99, namely: >> =E2=80=98linux-libre-headers-stripped-4.14.26-i686-linux.tar.xz=E2=80=99= (easy :-)), >> =E2=80=98mescc-tools-seed-XYZ.tar.gz=E2=80=99, and >> =E2=80=98mes-stripped-0.18-0.08f04f5-i686-linux.tar.xz=E2=80=99 > > So if you like, please make that change. There is only one little > thing: I have no (scripted) recipe to create mescc-tools-seed-XYZ. But > wait: I have a great excuse for that...I was too lazy or too sloppy. > > The thing is, I used to build mescc-tools-seed, mes-seed and tinycc-seed > manually from the mes+mescc+tinycc source trees. Jeremiah Orians is > working to remove any need for mescc-tools-seed (esp. the forward > dependency on Mes) but I don't think we're there yet. > > Anyway, I think we/I will have to put some work into scripting > mescc-tools-seed or otherwise changing the mescc-tools-boot build. > WDYT? I=E2=80=99m confused: how did you build the seeds that (gnu packages bootst= rap) refers to in =E2=80=98core-updates-next=E2=80=99? The goal is for the seeds to be built through Guix so we have a transparent and documented way to reproduce/verify them. I could propose a patch to do that, though from what you=E2=80=99re saying generating =E2=80=98mescc-tools-seed=E2=80=99 is not something readily doab= le? >> (do we really need an x86_64 version of this Mes?). > > No, I don't think so. I added it esp. to get a preview and enable > future development of pure x86_64 bootstrap; but dependency-wise we > should be able to drop it! Neat. Thanks for the explanations! Ludo=E2=80=99.