Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
All the info below is still valid, just to give you a heads-up that I
squashed the wip-bootstrap branch from 209 down to 14 commits. The 2
last introduce the mes bootstrap, the 12 others are preparations.
janneke
> For the 3rd time, again I believe that I have built i686-linux `hello'
> without using any bootstrap inputs. This time, I have actually built
>
> ./pre-inst-env guix build --system=i686-linux hello
>
> on x86_64 (Previously, I did most development in a x86 VM which hides
> problems with --system= setting) and I verified that
>
> ./pre-inst-env guix graph --type=bag -e '(begin (use-modules (guix
> packages) (gnu packages base)) (%current-system "i686-linux") hello)'
>
> does not include any `glibc-bootstrap', `gcc-bootstrap' or
> `binutils-bootstrap'.
>
> I found that using package-with-explicit-inputs often still sometimes
> has these packages leak in. I didn't manage to find out how or why.
>
> Using :implicit-inputs #f and #:guile %bootstrap-guile produces a clean
> package. So I rewrote
>
> diffutils-boot0
> findutils-boot0
> file-boot0
> perl-boot0
> m4-boot0
> bison-boot0
>
> to use that instead.
>
> Maybe we want to look at package-with-explicit-inputs and change/fix it?
>
> Also, i worked on glibc-2.16.0 to *really* remove all shreads of sunrpc.
> That was more work than expected but finally that fixed building
> gettext-boot0
>
> gettext-boot0: netdb.h: fatal error: rpc/netdb.h: No such file or directory
>
>
>
> Building bison-boot0, I removed the added `-D' flag to ranlib
>
> bison-boot0:
>
> #:make-flags `("ARFLAGS=crD"
> ,,(match (%current-system)
> ;; ranlib: '-D': No such file
> ("i686-linux" "RANLIB=ranlib")
> (_ "RANLIB=ranlib -D"))
> "V=1"))))))
>
>
> AFAICS, bootstrap-cross-boot0 does not support the -D flag. How did
> this ever work -- did binutils-bootstrap-0 always leak-in here?
>
> Next, I made two very ugly hacks to build libstdc++-boot0 and gcc-boot0
>
> libstdc++-boot0:
>
> ;; FIXME: why doesn't this package build libstdc++.so.6.0.20,
> ;; when gcc-mesboot builds it fine?
> ;; libtool: install:
> /gnu/store/7swwdnq02lqk4xkd8740fxdj1h4va38l-bootstrap-binaries-0/bin/install
> -c .libs/libstdc++.so.6.0.20
> /gnu/store/np5pmdlwfin3vmqk88chh0fgs0ncki79-libstdc++-boot0-4.8.5/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.20
> ;;
> /gnu/store/7swwdnq02lqk4xkd8740fxdj1h4va38l-bootstrap-binaries-0/bin/install:
> cannot stat '.libs/libstdc++.so.6.0.20': No such file or directory
> (add-after 'build 'copy-libstdc++-
> (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
> (let ((gcc (assoc-ref %build-inputs "gcc"))
> (out (assoc-ref outputs "out")))
> (copy-file (string-append gcc "/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.20")
> (string-append "src/.libs/libstdc++.so.6.0.20"))
> #t)))))))
>
>
>
> gcc-boot0:
>
> ,(match (%current-system)
> ("i686-linux"
> '(add-after 'build 'libtool-workaround
> (lambda _
> ;; libtool: install:
> /gnu/store/7swwdnq02lqk4xkd8740fxdj1h4va38l-bootstrap-binaries-0/bin/install
> -c .libs/libcc1.so.0.0.0
> /gnu/store/8qf47i99nxz9jvrmq5va0g3q1yvs3x74-gcc-cross-boot0-5.5.0-lib/lib/./libcc1.so.0.0.0
> ;;
> /gnu/store/7swwdnq02lqk4xkd8740fxdj1h4va38l-bootstrap-binaries-0/bin/install:
> cannot stat '.libs/libcc1.so.0.0.0': No such file or directory
> (system* "touch"
> "libcc1/.libs/libcc1.so.0.0.0"
> "libcc1/.libs/libcc1plugin.so.0.0.0"))))
> (_ 'identity))
>
> Updated the wip-bootstrap branch @ savannah.
>
> I'm now working on a patch for Mes to allow upgrading Nyacc to 0.86.0
> which will of course trigger a full rebuild.
>
> TODO:
> * have someone reproduce these results
> * review the wip-bootstrap branch
> * understand the need for the hacks I introduced, clean them up
> * check wip-bootstrap doesn't break other architectures/cross build, ...
> * verify that wip-bootstrap builds reproducible (ranlib -D?)
> * merge it, or squash the 207 commits into a single or at most a handful
> of commits?
> * refactor the full source bootstrap*)
> * other architectures
> * gash/geesh
> * ...?
>
> janneke
>
> *) - the initial gnu triplet is currently binutils-2.20, glibc-2.2.5 and
> gcc-2.95.3.
> one reason for choosing this triplet is that newer versions depend on a
> richer libc. while grafting the guix bootstrap onto this mes triplet,
> the
> Mes C Library was enriched; so possibly we could target a newer
> triplet: gcc-3.x, or maybe we want to enrich Mes C Library further.
> - gcc-mesboot-4.9.4 was inserted between gcc-mesboot1-4.7.4, it would
> be nice if one of those could be removed.
> - gcc-mesboot-4.9.4 is compiled with --enable-shared; that may be
> cause of the ugly libstdc++/gcc-boot0 libtool hacks? OTOH, it
> provides the libstdc++.so.6.0.20 that we need in libstdc++-boot0?
>
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com
