Pjotr Prins <pjotr.publi...@thebird.nl> skribis: > 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.
Sure. >> 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. I agree. build-aux/build-self.scm, which is what ‘guix pull’ runs to build Guix, is close to what you’re suggesting, IIUC: a pure-Guile build script. WDYT? Ludo’.
