From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Subject: Re: Preparing the reduced bootstrap tarballs Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 16:44:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87wopejqfa.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> 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]:56212) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNJpc-0006QL-OD for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:45:25 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gNJpb-0001so-NL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:45:24 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87muqa4sn5.fsf_-_@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?\=22's\?\= message of "Thu, 15 Nov 2018 10:06:06 +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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org 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 n= oticed 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 :-) > [...] > > (inputs `(("guile-tarball" ,%guile-bootstrap-tarball) > ,@(match (%current-system) > ("i686-linux" `(("mescc-tools-seed" ,(@ (gnu packages b= ootstrap) %mescc-tools-seed)) > ("mes-seed" ,(@ (gnu packages bootstrap= ) %mes-seed)) > ("srfi-43" ,(@ (gnu packages bootstrap)= %srfi-43)) > ("tinycc-seed" ,(@ (gnu packages bootst= rap) %tinycc-seed)))) > > This does not actually build the bootstrap tarballs; instead it returns > the pre-built seeds (also the =E2=80=98%tinycc-seed=E2=80=99 variable doe= sn=E2=80=99t exist.) Indeed. "mes-seed" and "tinycc-seed" are remnants of the past; the only things we need are > 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? > (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! > Does that make sense? Yes! > Sorry for the delay, and apologies if I overlooked something! Thank you for looking into and pointing out! janneke