bug#39655: [PATCH core-updates] doc: Add 'Scheme-only Bootstrap' node.

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen]

Hello!

Timothy Sample writes:

>> +The only significant binary bootstrap seeds that remain@footnote{
>> +Ignoring the 68KB @code{mescc-tools}; that will be removed later,
>> +together with @code{mes}.} are a Scheme intepreter and a Scheme
>> +compiler: GNU Mes and GNU Guile.
>
> Is it too confusing to mention the Bash, Tar, and XZ binaries used to
> get Guile up and running?  IIRC, there are a few packages whose sources
> are still patched via “bootstrap-origin”, too.  I understand that those
> binaries are really insignificant, but maybe someone new to this whole
> thing would be surprised to discover “secret” bootstrap binaries.
> Perhaps their role in unpacking Guile could be put in the footnote with
> messcc-tools.  WDYT?

Good question -- I've added this

compiler: GNU Mes and GNU Guile@footnote{Not shown in this graph are the
static binaries for @file{bash}, @code{tar}, and @code{xz} that are used
to get Guile running.}.

Efraim Flashner writes:

> > GNU Sed will also ship as gzipped tarballs again, as alternative to the
> > hard to bootstrap @code{xz}-compression), this set of added packages can
> > hopefully be reduced again.

> I have to ask since we're talking about bootstrapability; is it actually
> not bootstrappable or is it just harder/more complex? (The question is
> more about the wording than about the logistics of it.)

Good question, changed it to "hard to bootstrap", like so

GNU Sed will also ship as gzipped tarballs again, as alternative to the
hard to bootstrap @code{xz}-compression), this set of added packages can
hopefully be reduced again.

Thanks for your input, pushed to master!

janneke

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com