jochen
9766a3afce
Asked first whether the seats change fixed this in passing, since it landed the same day and touches both manifests the report names. It did not: the seat's holder is consulted only where several nodes provide the thing, and with none providing it resolution refuses outright. Genesis has no exemption — the unchecked first pass exists to learn what each node offers, and a declaration is never built from it. Records the part that did change: the three tests left failing on purpose were deleted by the controller's seats PR and replaced with passing seat-based ones, so the gap is invisible again. Adds the resolver to located-in, since that is where the refusal is.
65 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
65 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
# 121 — Diagnosis
|
||
|
||
## 2026-09-26 — the seats work renamed the requirement; it did not reorder the bootstrap
|
||
|
||
The seats change landed the same day this was filed (ADRs 0109–0111 accepted, and the code on both
|
||
main branches), and it touches exactly the two manifests this report names. That made it worth
|
||
asking first whether the deadlock had been fixed in passing. It has not.
|
||
|
||
### Step 1 — what the seats work changed
|
||
|
||
`builder`'s requirement was renamed from `package-registry` to `npm-package-registry`, which is now
|
||
a **seat** the forge holds; the forge claims `npm-package-registry` and `git` at mesh scope and
|
||
serves both. The provision is the same relationship under a name the mesh defines rather than one a
|
||
manifest invented.
|
||
|
||
### Step 2 — the seat's holder cannot answer when there is no holder yet
|
||
|
||
The seat is consulted in exactly one branch of resolution: where **several** nodes provide the
|
||
wanted provision and no pin says which. That is the ambiguity case, and it is not the bootstrap
|
||
case. With nothing providing it at all, resolution takes the branch for no providers and **refuses**,
|
||
naming the remedy:
|
||
|
||
> nothing in this mesh provides "npm-package-registry", wanted by builder — assign gitea to a node
|
||
|
||
A refusal, not a deferral. So a seat delivering a provision does not make a requirement optional
|
||
before the seat is filled, and nothing about the seats work moves the order.
|
||
|
||
### Step 3 — ruled out: genesis has no escape hatch
|
||
|
||
Resolution has an `Unchecked` mode that "takes brokered requirements on trust instead of refusing
|
||
when nothing answers them", which would be exactly the exemption a bootstrap needs. It is not one:
|
||
it exists for the first of two passes — working out what each node offers — and its own comment
|
||
states that **a declaration is never built from an unchecked resolution**. The second pass, the one
|
||
that produces the declaration, refuses.
|
||
|
||
### Step 4 — the other arm of the cycle is intact
|
||
|
||
The forge's manifest still carries a `build` section, its runtime image compiled from the
|
||
toolchain's build and runtime bases like every other built module. `builder` is what runs that
|
||
build. So both arms stand: the builder cannot be assigned before the forge provides the registry,
|
||
and the forge cannot exist as a container before the builder has built its image.
|
||
|
||
## What did change, and why it is the part worth recording
|
||
|
||
The three tests that pinned the carried-fallback design — the builder's own `package-binding`
|
||
resource, its port taken from the node, its identity kept — were **deleted** by the controller's
|
||
seats PR and replaced by seat-based tests that pass.
|
||
|
||
The report deliberately left those three failing so the gap would stay visible. It is no longer
|
||
visible: the suite is green, and the only remaining trace is this issue. That is the same way the
|
||
deadlock was invisible in the first place — a running mesh resolves the grant instantly, because the
|
||
forge is already built and assigned. Twice now, the evidence has been removed by something correct.
|
||
|
||
## What would actually answer it
|
||
|
||
- **A provision that resolves to a carried fallback when nothing provides it yet.** Nothing in the
|
||
model expresses "this, or a carried default until something can answer", for any provision. This
|
||
would be the first, which is why it belongs in a record rather than in a manifest.
|
||
- **Genesis sequencing instead** — build the forge before granting anything, with the builder never
|
||
resolving the registry during that window.
|
||
- **The forge's runtime image not being the mesh's to build** — an external image breaks the cycle
|
||
by removing the dependency rather than by expressing it.
|
||
|
||
None is chosen here. The report's open questions stand as written.
|