| 1 |
On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 09:21:06 -0400 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I'm not saying you can completely avoid the need for having some kind |
| 5 |
> of bootstrapping stage1. I'm just saying we should separate that need |
| 6 |
> from the issue of fully specifying dependencies, at least in an ideal |
| 7 |
> world where we're unconcerned with the effort of specifying |
| 8 |
> dependencies. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I think you could partially solve this by having gentoo-built binaries |
| 11 |
of things that are needed for bootstrap shipped as sys-devel/gcc-bin, |
| 12 |
or similar. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Then for dependency cycle breaking on "there is no bootstrap GCC" would |
| 15 |
fall back to pulling a binary GCC temporarily. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
After all, that's what the stages are isn't it? Aggregates of |
| 18 |
precompiled binaries in flying formation? |
Archives