Debating Full Source Bootstrap

[Vagrant Cascadian]

On 2023-11-14, ahojlm at 0w.se wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 06:19:31PM -0800, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>> The very thing the "Full-Source Bootstrap" builds is a C development
>> toolchain; that is arguably the whole point of the "Full-Source
>> Bootstrap" ... to avoid starting with a C development toolchain, by
>> starting from source, and building up to a working C toolchain...
>
> Before addressing in detail, TL;DR:
> The above looks regrettably like a persuasive definition[1].
...
> [1] "a form of stipulative definition which purports to describe the true
>     or commonly accepted meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating
>     an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view"
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition

I dispute the use of "altered or uncommon". Starting with a prebuilt C
compiler and claiming to bootstrap from source is a far more altered or
uncommon meaning for "Full Source Bootstrap" to me than bootstrapping
from an auditable hex binary.


> Why would "full-source" mean something other than
> that dependencies on anything but source are excluded?

I aboslutely agree with you here! Which is why I am so confused by this
whole argument!

I don't understand why you are arguing that something that depends on a
prebuilt existing C compiler toolchain to be a full source bootstrap.

At the very least, we may to have to agree to disagree here.

What Guix (and live-bootstrap) is doing looks more closely a
"Full-Source Bootstrap" reading the term at face value, at least to
me. You seem to think what VSOBFS did is, and should get the claim of
first, or at least remove the claim of guix having a first.

I have always felt that guix's "Full-Source Bootstrap" has some chinks
in it's armor, depending on a kernel and guile binary, and someday may
have to publish the "More Totally Completely Really Very
Fullerest-Source Bootstrap" post when those dependencies are removed.

If pushed, and there does feel to be a bit of pushing going on, I think
I would argue that neither Guix nor VSOBFS are yet technically "Full
Source Bootstraps", as they depend on pre-existing binaries (kernel and
C compiler in one case, kernel and guile binary in another).


But this bickering is truely tiresome!

  https://xkcd.com/386/

Please, remeber to rest!


At the end of the day, I think many projects have done tremendously
interesting and valuable things in this space! I look forward to
improvements in the state-of-the-art in reproducible bootstrapping.


live well,
  vagrant
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.reproducible-builds.org/pipermail/rb-general/attachments/20231114/ff9eff2c/attachment.sig>