MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <59E82379-9E96-4660-92B2-C595A947852E@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> <CA+T2pCE0TpbvdLqAchxHhDpJpnfck-jNM9Gj+fVipStONBxygQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <59E82379-9E96-4660-92B2-C595A947852E@jirutka.cz>
From: William Pitcock <nenolod@dereferenced.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 12:36:12 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+T2pCGG12OQQz5s5dK-q_DBzaO9NFWNAVK8vXxDVFmZoJxzBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Building community/cargo, build-edge-x86_64 is stuck
To: Jakub Jirutka <jakub@jirutka.cz>
Cc: Natanael Copa <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>, Timo Teras <timo.teras@iki.fi>, 
	alpine-infra@alpinelinux.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 12:07 PM, Jakub Jirutka <jakub@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 wh=
at 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
goal.

>> Manual intervention on the builders does not seem like a good idea to me=
, which is probably why it=E2=80=99s not compliant with policy.
>
> I agree, but I haven=E2=80=99t 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 =E2=80=9Ewin" the preferenc=
e.
>
> No, it was dropped because it was partially broken (I reviewed it) and ac=
tually not used (per fabled). I remember that quite well, =E2=80=99cause I =
wasted amount of time trying to figure out how does it work, to be then tol=
d it=E2=80=99s 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=E2=80=99t know what is the correct solution. Th=
at=E2=80=99s 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 reproducibl=
e.
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 bro=
ken.
>
> And maybe even gcc, =E2=80=99cause it also depends on itself=E2=80=A6 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=E2=80=99t interfere into it and wait for reaction from nco=
pa 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
already known.

William