On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:32:06PM +0200, Ludovic Court??s wrote: > Pjotr Prins <pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> skribis: > > > The combination of 'guix pull' held a promise, were it not that pull is > > also iffy. Probably for pretty much the same reason. > > > > The bootstrap+configure scripts try to work that, but actually > > address a wider case. I.e. people who want to bootstrap in Debian etc. > > I don't think we need al that. I write Makefile.guix for my projects > > and they tend to be simple! Once you can assume Guix is there life > > gets simple as a developer - except when you try to bootstrap :0 > > > > The instruction I would like to write for others is: > > > > 1. Install the latest bootstrap-guix-from-source package after a guix pull > > 2. git clone guix && cd guix > > 3. run make -f Makefile.guix > > > > (no configure is needed in guix!) > > > > 4. ./pre-inst guix etc. etc. > > I think there are two very different use cases. > > As a user I want something like 'apt-get update', which is what 'guix > pull' tries to do.
Sure. But from my previous E-mail you can see we are effectively using pull to bootstrap the source tree build. > For Guix developers, I think it's reasonable to have a traditional GNU > build system. After all, Guix is also a regular software package that > people can build from source with './configure && make && make install'. My point is that we can simplify. I like simple. Simple is good. We can have both the configure and a simple Makefile.guix option. That is what I do with my projects. We do not need bootstrap, autoconf and configure on a running Guix system. We do need it for other distributions. Anyway, feel free to ignore this idea. Pj. --
