<fossy>i have a couple of changes locally on top of this but we'll merge this one first then i'll pr my changes on top of it <stikonas>a couple of other minor chnages that can be done: <stikonas>1. we can swap patch and make and build patch using makefile. 2. do not download 2nd copy of automake-1.16.3.xz (use .gz) <stikonas>at some point if I have time I can do those <stikonas>fossy: we also should update documentation with steps how to kick it off manually <stikonas>I think just copy over live-bootstrap on top of stage0-posix <fossy>also locally i have sysa/distfiles and sysc/distfiles rather than merged /distfiles so you don't even need to do that <stikonas>oh, another thing, we should probably do tarball checksumming inside too <fossy>i can't think of anything else that stops someone from just copying it over and running it now? <fossy>been meaning to do that for a while just kept forgetting <stikonas>well, it was mostly tarballs in individual directories that prevented that <stikonas>fossy: yes, I think it should just run now <stikonas>they basically just do copytree and nothing else <fossy>just a couple of small things <stikonas>it's a bit annoying that we have SOURCES=/sysa... now <fossy>one of my local changes is changing /sources to /distfiles <fossy>to avoid the confusion between tarball sources and script sources ***j-k39 is now known as j-k
<j-k[m]>is it possible to actually bootstrap dotnet? I'm looking at their "build from source" guide but it seems to just download an old version for building the newer version. I can't see any detail for starting from something like gcc or clang, or at the very least what is the lowest prebuilt dotnet I can use to build v6 etc <pabs3>there was some discussion of this in recent weeks, the /topic has a link to the channel logs. search for .NET and Mono to find it <j-k[m]>ok cool. I'll have a search. thanks <j-k[m]>Looking at arch and homebrew they both take this approach of clone the installer dir, run `./build.sh /p:ArcadeBuildTarball=true /p:TarballDir=blah` etc following the instructions <j-k[m]>> As of December 2012, the DotGNU project has been decommissioned, until and unless a substantial new volunteer effort arises. <muurkha>Mono is the thing we were talking about <j-k[m]>I'm still very confused the relation between mono and .net - I looked around for details on building .net with anything other than itself e.g. mono but didn't find anything <muurkha>is the source code to .net even available, much less under a free license? <unmatched-paren>muurkha, j-k[m]: this is my understanding of the dotnet situation (someone please correct me if i'm wrong): <unmatched-paren>dotnet was a proprietary microsoft thing at first; it was going to be some massive thing according to Microsoft, so GNU decided to write Portable.NET to stop them, which has now been stopped <unmatched-paren>at some point, Mono started, but was bootstrapped at first from the proprietary dotnet <unmatched-paren>and now, Microsoft has freed dotnet and called it `dotnet core', which is _also_ not bootstrappable <unmatched-paren>the reason dotnet-core and mono are not bootstrappable is _not_ because of the runtime, which is written in C for both i think, it's because the C# compilers which create CIL bytecode are written in C# <muurkha>one minor correction of something you left implicit and so possibly didn't mean: dotnet *is* some massive thing; check the StackOverflow tags for C# and VB.NET <unmatched-paren>but we _might_ be able to use pnet's C# compiler written in C with one of the three runtimes <unmatched-paren>so pnet compiles the mono compiler, which compiles Roslyn, the dotnet-core compiler <unmatched-paren>muurkha: yeah, i mean i've heard they said it was going to take over the whole internet <unmatched-paren>(i wasn't programming at the time, so i'm just going off what i've heard) <muurkha>yeah, MS was really hoping .NET and Hailstorm and Palladium would be a bigger deal than they were <unmatched-paren>because at the time when pnet was written, there was no such thing as F# <muurkha>but even in their failure state we still have hundreds of thousands of people programming in C# fulltime <muurkha>I think you can run the normal F# on Mono <muurkha>because OCaml is a good langauge for bootstrapping compilers <muurkha>F# was open-source from the beginning I think? <unmatched-paren>VB also comes free with Roslyn, but i don't think anybody actually wants VB :P <muurkha>I feel like VB.NET is kind of an alternate syntax for C#, but I don't know if that's really justified <muurkha>I admit I like C#'s syntax better than VB.NET's <muurkha>but there are people who prefer VB syntax <unmatched-paren>VB is an alternate syntax for C# with different features in the same way that Kotlin is kind of like an alternate syntax for Java with different features <muurkha>well, Kotlin offers a lot more expressiveness and safety than Java <muurkha>VB (pre-.NET) was a pretty nice system, kind of like Perl or PHP for GUIs. lots of whipupitude, not much manipulexity, less error-prone and faster to debug than C++ or C. I feel like C# kind of gave you the best of both worlds <muurkha>not if you've ever written a CGI program in C <unmatched-paren>so, tldr for j-k[m]: it might be possible to get mono's mcs compiler compiled with pnet's cscc, then compile dotnet-core's roslyn with mcs <unmatched-paren>but nobody's tried yet as far as i know, maybe partially because of the patent ugliness <unmatched-paren>i've never written F#, but i know it's very similar to ocaml. i'm wondering how easy it would be to hand-convert it to ocaml... <unmatched-paren>wouldn't work well with most languages, but if F# is as similar to OCaml as i've heard, then it might be possible? <unmatched-paren>so we could have the `fsharp' compiler (written in F#) and the `dotnet' runtime (written in C) without `roslyn' (written in C#) <unmatched-paren>for important dotnet standard libraries that are presumably written in C# <unmatched-paren>if so, the first thing you should do is package `pnet'; there doesn't seem to be any package for it (`guix search dotgnu' returns nothing) ***lh is now known as hupfer
***hupfer is now known as lh
***hpfr is now known as lph
***lph is now known as hpfr
***lh is now known as lhindir
***lhindir is now known as liamiam
***liamiam is now known as lmhpfr
***lmhpfr is now known as lhupfer
***lhupfer is now known as liamhupfer
***liamhupfer is now known as lh