Re: Building community/cargo, build-edge-x86_64 is stuck
On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Jakub Jirutka <jakub_at_jirutka.cz> wrote:
>> If this is the case, then it, too, is no longer policy compliant.
> Said who? These policies are (still) not written anywhere, so I follow what I was told by competent people like ncopa or fabled.
Thank you for your continued implication that I'm not competent.
I am working on fixing the fact that policy is not properly
documented, please be patient.
However, the entire point of adding `abuild rootbld` was to ensure
that builds were reproducible, so clearly reproducibility is a policy
>> Manual intervention on the builders does not seem like a good idea to me, which is probably why it’s not compliant with policy.
> I agree, but I haven’t created this approach.
If you know in your gut, it is a bad approach, then why continue to follow it?
>> I suspect the ghc-bootstrap package was dropped because of the depsolver bug I solved back in April.
>> The bootstrap package would have a provides entry for the compiler with a version of 0.
>> This would allow the real compiler to always „win" the preference.
> No, it was dropped because it was partially broken (I reviewed it) and actually not used (per fabled). I remember that quite well, ’cause I wasted amount of time trying to figure out how does it work, to be then told it’s not used at all.
Yes, what I am implying, is that it was never used because it
triggered the same bug.
It was never used because it resulted in erroneous conflicts.
>> Instead, lets solve these problems correctly, please.
> The problem is that I don’t know what is the correct solution. That’s why I asked ncopa or fabled.
I explained the correct solution already, but will do so again: you
have to break the dependency cycle, by using a bootstrap package.
There is no other way to do it that would allow the build to be reproducible.
But since I am in your eyes incompetent, I am sure you will continue
to ignore this.
>> Indeed, the only thing we have learned today is that Haskell is also broken.
> And maybe even gcc, ’cause it also depends on itself… Or you have just wrong information. gcc is also handled somehow specially, if I remember correctly what fabled told me.
It is not.
The GCC contains enough information in the APKBUILD to bootstrap
itself, given an already present C compiler.
In fact, in the process of bootstrapping, *two* GCC packages are created.
See $_bootstrap_configure, $_cross_configure and $_arch_configure for
more details on how these are different.
> So please, don’t interfere into it and wait for reaction from ncopa or fabled.
Please stop implying everyone other than you is incompetent when in
reality you are the one who pushed a broken package that you did not
bother to test under rootbld.
Had you tested under rootbld, you would have known that the builders
would not have accepted the package.
There is no need to wait for bad advice when the correct advice is
Received on Mon Oct 30 2017 - 12:36:12 UTC