GNU bug report logs - #60847
[PATCH] Enable cross-compilation for the pyproject-build-system.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe <at> gnu.org>, 60847 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>, Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net>, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>, jgart <jgart <at> dismail.de>
Subject: [bug#60847] [PATCH] Enable cross-compilation for the pyproject-build-system.
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 23:05:30 -0500

Hi,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>> +  (let ((builder-name (procedure-name (bag-build bag))))
>>>>>> +    (if (or (bag-target bag)
>>>>>> +            (eq? 'pyproject-build builder-name))
>>>>>> +        (bag->cross-derivation bag)
>>>>>
>>>>> This one part is a showstopper to me, for two reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>>   1. We cannot rely on ‘procedure-name’ (it’s a debugging aid and it’s
>>>>>      not guaranteed to return something useful).
>>>>>
>>>>>   2. Special-casing build systems here is not okay: the bag and build
>>>>>      system abstractions exist to maintain separation of concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand there’s an actual bug to fix and the desire to fix a more
>>>>> common issue, but I think this one approach is not the way forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that makes sense!
>>>>
>>>> I agree this is not "pretty", but it would be a "temporary" kludge until
>>>
>>> To make sure there’s no misunderstanding, I think that’s not okay even
>>> as a “temporary kludge” (I’m not against temporary kludges in general,
>>> I’ve done my share of that ;-), but this would be way too brittle.)
>>
>> "way too brittle" is a strong warning :-).
>
> It is; I’m objecting to this change.

OK.

>> I don't understand what is
>> so brittle about it?  It's not like we change the build system names
>> often.
>
> I have little to add to what I wrote above: procedure names don’t mean
> anything, especially with higher-order functions, and separation of
> concerns is an important design principle.
>
> I’m speaking with 15+ years of experience with Guile; I don’t mind being
> challenged, it’s healthy, but I think we also need to recognize the
> expertise of each other and encounter each other halfway.

When I don't understand something, I ask for an explanation.  I'm happy
(and greatly value) that my correspondent has 15 years of experience
with Guile, but I'll still ask if something is unclear.  I hope you
don't mind.

> [...]
>
>>> Perhaps one suggestion would be: start the native-inputs/inputs change
>>> on a new branch, for all the build systems (or at least the main
>>> ones), and then try to build the ‘core’ subset (which includes
>>> cross-compilation) to get an idea of the kind of code simplification
>>> opportunities as well as issues that arise.  I feel like it’s hard to
>>> anticipate the impact of such a change without actually trying.
>>
>> I can do this; the exercise would be similar to what I've done for
>> pyproject-build-system, where I was able to build complex packages (both
>> natively and cross-compiled) with the new same-bag representation
>> change, but to a larger scale.  It's more work, which is why I would
>> have preferred to contain its scope to get started, but the changes were
>> easy, IIRC.
>
> Yes, I agree it’s more work, but it’s dissimilar in that you’ll be
> confronted with tons of weird cases, some of which we can already
> anticipate, but probably others we’ll probably be surprised to discover.

OK.  I'll put this to the test, when I'm done with the current Ruby
rabbit-hole I've been pursuing.  Thanks for the feedback!

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.