Subject: Grafts vs. early bootstrapping packages

From: [email-masked] (Ludovic Courtès)
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 23:01:25 +0100

Hello,

Mark H Weaver <[email-masked]> skribis:

>> Ricardo Wurmus <[email-masked]> writes:

[...]

>>  (define glibc-final
>>    ;; The final glibc, which embeds the statically-linked Bash built above.
>> -  (package (inherit glibc-final-with-bootstrap-bash)
>> +  (package/inherit glibc-final-with-bootstrap-bash
>>      (name "glibc")
>>      (inputs `(("static-bash" ,static-bash-for-glibc)
>>                ,@(alist-delete
>
> We seem to be oscillating on the question of whether to graft these
> early GLIBCs.  In June 2017, I switched to using 'package/inherit' here
> in commit 13f7f2fd2b208c29361ef2290f55911879a6adf2, and in October those
> changes were reverted in commit 848f550f2c105326dc3be4033c8aaf35ec21cde4
> by Efraim, although I'm not sure why.

I doesn’t make sense to graft “glibc-intermediate” because it’s only
used in ‘static-bash-for-glibc’, which statically links against it.  The
situation is similar with the “-boot0” packages: they are not referenced
by the packages we use.

So I think 848f550f2c105326dc3be4033c8aaf35ec21cde4 was a good idea.
f00b85ff8d34df0a1879e593d4a85629b8586af7 does something similar.

Ludo’.