MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CB840A20-A016-4344-9F26-5AEDCEC26C93@jirutka.cz>
References: <700B1EC2-05EB-433D-B8CA-886DDF4CAE70@jirutka.cz>
 <CA+T2pCE-B2P_Js=hc+X-UjvptJTMizX_nUZ4szzBodHZLi3Ktg@mail.gmail.com> <CB840A20-A016-4344-9F26-5AEDCEC26C93@jirutka.cz>
From: William Pitcock <nenolod@dereferenced.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 11:53:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+T2pCE0TpbvdLqAchxHhDpJpnfck-jNM9Gj+fVipStONBxygQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Building community/cargo, build-edge-x86_64 is stuck
To: Jakub Jirutka <jakub@jirutka.cz>
Cc: alpine-infra@alpinelinux.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Jakub Jirutka <jakub@jirutka.cz> wrote:
>> A manual intervention on each builder is not an acceptable solution.
>> Policy requires that builds be reproducible, in other words, that they c=
an build with `abuild rootbld`.
>> So this change should not have been pushed to begin with.
>
>
> No, I thought this too, but it=E2=80=99s not how it really works. See bel=
ow.
>
>> Look at the haskell + cabal packaging for inspiration, it is a similar s=
ituation, and is policy compliant.
>
> Have *you* looked at ghc (haskell) package? I did some time ago (and now)=
, tried hard to figure out how does it build. There is `makedepends_build=
=3D"$pkgname"`, so it depends on itself. There used to be package ghc-boots=
trap, but it was not used anymore (and even that couldn=E2=80=99t work with=
out manual intervention). I asked fabled about it and he explained me that =
ghc-bootstrap was only temporary for initial bootstrap, now ghc depends on =
itself and it must be probably manually installed on the builder when boots=
trapping.

I did some time ago, when we had ghc-bootstrap package.
If this is the case, then it, too, is no longer policy compliant.

> The same situation is community/rust. I even mentioned this in my email.

The same situation of being policy non-compliant?

> Unfortunately the bootstrapping (and cross-compilation) process is still =
not documented anywhere, so I can refer only to information that I was told=
 by more competent people like fabled.

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 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.

>> A solution would be to take a copy of the cargo package from distfiles.a=
lpinelinux.org
>
> This is actually a good idea. I can keep it as it was before, just use ou=
r cargo binary instead of now non-existence binary from the upstream.

You could do that, or what I was inferring was that the binary itself
was still available on distfiles.alpinelinux.org.
All the builders copy their sources to that server.

> fabled or ncopa, could you please explain how is ghc and similar packages=
 handled? Ideally directly on wiki, or just via email and I will copy it to=
 wiki.

Instead, lets solve these problems correctly, please.
Indeed, the only thing we have learned today is that Haskell is also broken=
.

William