Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
>
>> It is probably easier for us to try to write primitive compilers in
>> Guile than to start from scratch each time. Then the only blob we need
>> to figure out how to bootstrap would be Guile itself.
>
> +1
>
> Though of course, writing a fai
Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> It is probably easier for us to try to write primitive compilers in
> Guile than to start from scratch each time. Then the only blob we need
> to figure out how to bootstrap would be Guile itself.
+1
Though of course, writing a faithful C or Haskell or OCaml compiler
Chris Marusich writes:
> Chris Marusich writes:
>
>
> Sorry for replying to my own post, but I couldn't help myself. If
> anyone thinks the above sounds too paranoid, remember the Ken Thompson
> hack:
>
> http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?TheKenThompsonHack
>
There is a way to defeat this kind of atta
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 09:12:52AM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> GCC itself is not sufficient to build many compilers. For GHC, for
> example, you need a Haskell compiler such as GHC. I looked at nhc98 and
> other defunct Haskell compilers, but they all have a bootstrapping step
> that either re
Hey,
I have a few quick notes that aren't that relevant.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 11:55:44PM -0700, Chris Marusich wrote:
> > 1) Write the simplest possible program (or collection of programs) in
> > the simplest possible machine code. This program serves only one
> > purpose: to enable you to wr
Chris Marusich writes:
> Leo Famulari writes:
>
>> `wget https://blob` doesn't count as reproducible :)
>
> Very true.
>
> Self-hosting compilers are a cute trick, but they're a far cry from
> being reproducible. They're just inscrutable binary blobs. If we want
> true reproducibility from th
Chris Marusich writes:
> Leo Famulari writes:
>
>> `wget https://blob` doesn't count as reproducible :)
>
> Very true.
>
> Self-hosting compilers are a cute trick, but they're a far cry from
> being reproducible. They're just inscrutable binary blobs. If we want
> true reproducibility from the
Doesn't gcc also belong in this category?
J'
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 01:54:24PM -0400, Thompson, David wrote:
Haskell, OCaml, Chicken, and other compilers that we package have a
serious issue that many of us are aware of: they cannot be built from
source! They rely upon pre-built
Leo Famulari writes:
> `wget https://blob` doesn't count as reproducible :)
Very true.
Self-hosting compilers are a cute trick, but they're a far cry from
being reproducible. They're just inscrutable binary blobs. If we want
true reproducibility from the bottom up, then it seems like the only
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:08:09AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari skribis:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:49:33PM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> >> Ludovic Courtès writes:
> >>
> >> > Christopher Allan Webber skribis:
> >> >
> >> >> Let me give an even shorter-term sol
Leo Famulari skribis:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:49:33PM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>>
>> > Christopher Allan Webber skribis:
>> >
>> >> Let me give an even shorter-term solution: maybe there is a way to mark
>> >> things as risky from a trust perspectiv
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 03:49:33PM -0700, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
> > Christopher Allan Webber 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
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Christopher Allan Webber 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
>>
Christopher Allan Webber 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
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> "Thompson, David" skribis:
>
>> Haskell, OCaml, Chicken, and other compilers that we package have a
>> serious issue that many of us are aware of: they cannot be built from
>> source!
>
> (And GCC, but let’s put it aside for now.)
>
>> They rely upon pre-built binaries o
Jookia <166...@gmail.com> skribis:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:48:40PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Often, in their implementation history, compilers are boostrapped from
>> something else initially, and only later to they become self-hosted and
>> unbootstrappable.
>>
>> So in theory, it’d b
ra...@openmailbox.org skribis:
> I would like to propose one idea to manage this: What about adding a
> field to the system configuration for a list of 'trusted-binaries'?
To me it sounds like sidestepping the issue.
We’d want the whole distro to be trustworthy.
Ludo’.
Eric Bavier skribis:
> On 2016-03-21 17:48, l...@gnu.org wrote:
>> taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
>>
>>> A while back Mark raised the idea of hosting one pre-compiled
>>> bootstrap
>>> version of each such compiler, and use that to compile further
>>> versions.
On 2016-03-21 17:48, l...@gnu.org wrote:
taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
A while back Mark raised the idea of hosting one pre-compiled
bootstrap
version of each such compiler, and use that to compile further
versions.
This way the number of blobs is one per
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:48:40PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Often, in their implementation history, compilers are boostrapped from
> something else initially, and only later to they become self-hosted and
> unbootstrappable.
>
> So in theory, it’d be possible to find, say, an old-enough GHC
On 2016-03-21 17:54, Thompson, David wrote:
Haskell, OCaml, Chicken, and other compilers that we package have a
serious issue that many of us are aware of: they cannot be built from
source! They rely upon pre-built binaries of the same compiler. I
understand that it's very inconvenient to not h
"Thompson, David" skribis:
> Haskell, OCaml, Chicken, and other compilers that we package have a
> serious issue that many of us are aware of: they cannot be built from
> source!
(And GCC, but let’s put it aside for now.)
> They rely upon pre-built binaries of the same compiler. I understand
>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 08:15:34PM +0100, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:
> So when someone instructs guix to rebuild the world from scratch, it
> downloads the bootstrap blob, then builds 1.1 with it, then builds 1.7
> with that, then 2.2 with that, and so on, and ultimately the current
> vers
taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> "Thompson, David" writes:
>
>> Haskell, OCaml, Chicken, and other compilers that we package have a
>> serious issue that many of us are aware of: they cannot be built from
>> source! They rely upon pre-built binaries of the same
"Thompson, David" writes:
> Haskell, OCaml, Chicken, and other compilers that we package have a
> serious issue that many of us are aware of: they cannot be built from
> source! They rely upon pre-built binaries of the same compiler. I
> understand that it's very inconvenient to not have these
25 matches
Mail list logo
