Ludovic Courtès writes: Hi!
> (This is a followup to <https://bugs.gnu.org/33038>.) > I (finally!) run “guix build bootstrap-tarballs” on ‘core-updates-next’, > but that was a bit silly of me since that built the x86_64-linux > tarballs—i.e., not the “reduced seed.” > > So I was about to re-run it with “-s i686-linux”, 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 :-) > [...] > > (inputs `(("guile-tarball" ,%guile-bootstrap-tarball) > ,@(match (%current-system) > ("i686-linux" `(("mescc-tools-seed" ,(@ (gnu packages > bootstrap) %mescc-tools-seed)) > ("mes-seed" ,(@ (gnu packages bootstrap) > %mes-seed)) > ("srfi-43" ,(@ (gnu packages bootstrap) > %srfi-43)) > ("tinycc-seed" ,(@ (gnu packages bootstrap) > %tinycc-seed)))) > > This does not actually build the bootstrap tarballs; instead it returns > the pre-built seeds (also the ‘%tinycc-seed’ variable doesn’t 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 > ‘%bootstrap-inputs’, namely: > ‘linux-libre-headers-stripped-4.14.26-i686-linux.tar.xz’ (easy :-)), > ‘mescc-tools-seed-XYZ.tar.gz’, and > ‘mes-stripped-0.18-0.08f04f5-i686-linux.tar.xz’ 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
