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

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> skribis:

> Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
>
>> Just to give you a heads up: four `Oops' fixup-commits later I decided
>> to squash them again and create a fresh wip-bootstrap: d7feea557.
>>
>> I think it could be ready for a rename to core-updates-next.
>>
>> $ guix hash -r /gnu/store/y7wy6yr4j19f7d5xlqdln094nivy4cx3-hello-2.10
>> 0ab0nazn6v0ybkig9xn58xjk4rqcyanp4wy4rywf32nyl8bgbly5
>
> I finally realised what it really means that the GuixSD bootstrap has
> `binutils-cross-boot0' (I really think that should be reflected in the
> SCM name too?) and `gcc-cross-boot0': bolting the x86_64-linux bootstrap
> onto the i686-linux Mes bootstrap proved to be "almost" trivial (very
> low hanging fruit I think whas wat Ludovic said).

Awesome, really great.

Hopefully ARMv7 and AArch64 can be addressed similarly in one go when we
get there.

> So, I took the freedom to add another commit onto wip-bootstrap that
> also replaces the x86_64-linux bootstrap.  I realise that this commit
> may have its own problems; so when moving to core-updates-next we may
> want to be a bit careful before taking it in.

I think as long as we can build Hello or similar things and “make check”
doesn’t show new regressions, we should be fine.

I’ve looked at the latest set of commits that ends with
78b8c9af45e7e261b22b198886daffcf12f22a56 and it LGTM!  So I think you
can go ahead and push as ‘core-updates-next’.

Something to keep in mind regarding “bootstrap: Add Mes bootstrap
seeds.”: once the branch is in place, we should regenerate the seeds
from the branch, upload them to ftp.gnu.org, adjust bootstrap.scm and
record in the commit log which commit we used to generated those seeds
(hoping they are bit-reproducible.)

Anyway, thumbs up for making what’s to my knowledge the distro with the
smallest set of binary seeds!

Thank you!

Ludo’.