Re: Removing compilers that cannot be bootstrapped

[Ludovic Courtès]

Leo Famulari <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:49:33PM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>> 
>> > Christopher Allan Webber <address@hidden> skribis:
>> >
>> >> Let me give an even shorter-term solution: maybe there is a way to mark
>> >> things as risky from a trust perspective when it comes to bootstrapping?
>> >> Maybe we could do something like:
>> >>
>> >>   (define-public ghc
>> >>     (package
>> >>       (name "ghc")
>> >>       (version "7.10.2")
>> >>       ;; [... bla bla ...]
>> >>       (properties '(("bootstrap-untrusted" #t)))))
>> >
>> > Why not, but what would be the correspond warning, and the expected
>> > effect?
>> 
>> A warning, or maybe even also a:
>> 
>>   guix package -i foo --only-reproducible
>> 
>> which could error?

Hmm or --only-traceable?

> If we decide to do something like that, we should decide if we want the
> word 'reproducible' to mean bit-for-bit reproducibility.

The problem is that big binary blobs like GHC’s are necessarily
bit-for-bit reproducible.  :-)

Ludo’.