Re: bootstrap: i686-linux now builds without binutils, gcc seeds

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:

Hi Ludo'!

Replying to your initial review to notice the things that I initially
postponed and now have been done and the things that are still todo.

>> Previously we discussed that “-s i686-linux” on x86_64 would lead to a
>> different graph compared to a native i686-linux run.  Is it still the
>> case?  It looks like 80bd4a995 does the right thing in that respect.

I just push a fresh wip-bootstrap 6d975c901, and all differences between
native x86 and --system=i686-linux are now gone!

As discussed in bug-32749 I'm now using thunks for packages that use
package-with-explicit-inputs.  So, I reverted my previous `...leak'
commit rewrites.

Also, I changed more inputs to chunks (some ld-wrapper*) and I slightly
rewrote static-bash-for-glibc; just to make sure to look at
%current-system at run time, rather than load time.

>> I looked at the result and overall it LGTM!  So I think the next step is
>> to rebase the branch on ‘core-updates’ (or merge it) and rename it
>> ‘core-updates-next’.  WDYT?  Ricardo?

This new wip-bootstrap is rebased on core-updates, I think it's ready for a
rename to core-updates-next but wanted you all to have a look first.

>> Some comments on things that I think could be improved, in no particular
>> order:

>>   • There’s a couple of tests (for example in tests/debug-link.scm) that
>>     rely on %gcc-bootstrap, on the assumption that building it is
>>     cheap.  We should double-check that these are still okay on i686.

I haven't addressed this.

>>   • Could you add a couple of lines of explanation at the top of the new
>>     gnu/packages/patches/*.patch files, as we do for other patches?
>>     Some of them could also be simplified; for instance
>>     ‘glibc-boot-2.2.5.patch’ contains the diff of what looks like a
>>     leftover file.

I went through all patches, cleaned them up ad added comments.

Thanks!
janneke