From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: <87a7f5l6e1.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> <8736knieo3.fsf@kyleam.com> <87v9xjja6b.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Next steps for the GWL In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:59:51 +0200 Message-ID: <87o93akjpk.fsf@mdc-berlin.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: zimoun Cc: Kyle Meyer , gwl-devel@gnu.org List-ID: Hi simon, > I agree that the mechanism such as `git-annex` should be nice. > But is it not a mean for the CAS that we previously discussed? I does not need to be the *only* mechanism. Multiple backends can serve different users. > I fully agree with the features and their description. Totally cool! > However, I am a bit reluctant with `git-annex` because it requires a > Haskell compiler and it is far far from "bootstrapability". I am aware > of the Ricardo's try---and AFIAK the only one. And here [1] > explanations by one Haskeller. This is off-topic, but I=E2=80=99m probably going to bite the bullet and si= mply use GCC 2.x to build an old GHC 4.x from the C =E2=80=9Csource=E2=80=9D fil= es, which are surprisingly close to actual source code. I=E2=80=99ve tried to build GHC = 4.x with a recent compiler, but the code depends on too many quirks of GCC 2 that make it very hard to be sure about the behavior post migration. (Re [1]: I talked to Joachim at one of the repro builds summit about the GHC bootstrapping attempts, which prompted their blog post.) -- Ricardo