Hi janneke!
> I have added this text to wip-bootstrap, image not shown inline here,
> WDYT?
[…]
> +@node Reduced Binary Seed Bootstrap
> +@section The Reduced Binary Seed Bootstrap
> +
> +Guix---like other GNU/Linux distributions---is traditionally bootstrapped
> from
> +from a set of bootstrap binaries: Bourne shell, command-line tools provided
> by
^— this is an extra “from”.
> +GNU Coreutils, Awk, Findutils, `sed', and `grep' and Guile, GCC, Binutils,
> and
> +the GNU C Library (@pxref{Bootstrapping}). Usually, these bootstrap-binaries
“bootstrap binaries”
> +are ``taken for granted.''
> +
> +What does this mean, really? By taking these binaries for granted, trusting
> +Guix depends on the trusting these binaries to be correct and clean. Therein
How about this instead of the second sentence:
“Taking these binaries for granted means that we consider them to be a
correct and trustworthy ‘seed’ for building the complete system.”
> +lies a problem: the current combined size of these bootstrap-binaries is
> about
“bootstrap binaries”
> +250MB (@pxref{Bootstrappable Builds,,, mes, Mes Reference Manual}). Auditing
> +or even inspecting these is next to impossible.
> +
> +For @code{i686-linux}, Guix now features a ``Reduced Binary Seed'' bootstrap
> +@footnote{We would like to say: ``Full Source Bootstrap'' and while we are
> +working towards that it would be a hyperbole to use that term for what we do
> +now.}.
“would be hyperbole” (no “a”)
> +The Reduced Binary Seed bootstrap removes the most critical tools---from a
> +trust perspective---from the bootstrap binaries: GCC, Binutils and the GNU C
> +Library are replaced by: @code{mescc-tools-seed} (a tiny assembler and
> linker)
> +@code{mes-seed} (a small Scheme Interpreter and a C compiler writen in
> Scheme)
> +and @code{tinycc-seed} (the Mes C Library, built for TinyCC). Using these
> new
> +binary seeds and a new set of
> +@c
> +package descriptions@footnote{@c
I’d remove “descriptions”.
> +mescc-tools-boot,
> +nyacc-boot,
> +mes-boot,
> +tcc-boot0,
> +tcc-boot,
> +make-mesboot0,
> +diffutils-mesboot,
> +binutils-mesboot0,
> +gcc-core-mesboot,
> +mesboot-headers,
> +glibc-mesboot0,
> +gcc-mesboot0,
> +binutils-mesboot,
> +make-mesboot,
> +gcc-mesboot1,
> +gcc-mesboot1-wrapper,
> +glibc-headers-mesboot,
> +glibc-mesboot,
> +gcc-mesboot,
+ “and”
> +gcc-mesboot-wrapper.
> +}
> +@c
> +the ``missing'' Binutils, and the GNU C Library are built, from source. From
“, from source” –> “ from source”.
> +here on the more traditional bootstrap process resumes. This approach has
> +reduced the bootstrap binaries in size to about 130MB. Work is ongoing to
> +reduce this further. If you are interested, join us on @code{#boottrappable}
typo: #bootstrappable
> +on the Freenode IRC network.
> +
> +@c ./pre-inst-env guix graph --type=bag -e '(begin (use-modules (guix
> packages)) (%current-system "i686-linux") (@@ (gnu packages commencement)
> gcc-mesboot))' > doc/images/gcc-mesboot-bag-graph.dot
> +@c dot -T png doc/images/gcc-mesboot-bag-graph.dot >
> doc/images/gcc-mesboot-bag-graph.png
> +
> +Below is the generated dependency graph to for @code{gcc-mesboot} that builds
> +the rest of GuixSD.
“to for” –> “for”
How about this:
Below is the generated dependency graph for @code{gcc-mesboot}, the
bootstrap compiler used to build the rest of GuixSD.
>> • I think all the “mesboot” & co. packages in commencement.scam can be
>> made private–i.e., changing ‘define-public’ to ‘define’.
>
> I agree; I kept gcc-mesboot (the final gcc) public, is that OK?
If it isn’t referenced by other modules and would not be installed by
users I think it doesn’t need to be public, but I think either way is
fine.
Thanks!
--
Ricardo
