Hello! Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jann...@gnu.org> skribis:
> 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 :-) Heheh. :-) It’s what the “Building the Bootstrap Binaries” section describes. > Indeed. "mes-seed" and "tinycc-seed" are remnants of the past; the only > things we need are OK. >> 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? I’m confused: how did you build the seeds that (gnu packages bootstrap) refers to in ‘core-updates-next’? The goal is for the seeds to be built through Guix so we have a transparent and documented way to reproduce/verify them. I could propose a patch to do that, though from what you’re saying generating ‘mescc-tools-seed’ is not something readily doable? >> (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! Neat. Thanks for the explanations! Ludo’.