[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on ar
From: |
Marius Bakke |
Subject: |
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf. |
Date: |
Mon, 02 Jul 2018 20:28:28 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Notmuch/0.27 (https://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/26.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi Marius,
>
> address@hidden (Marius Bakke) writes:
>
>> mbakke pushed a commit to branch staging
>> in repository guix.
>>
>> commit cb4b508cd68df89bfbd5255a0c5569f8318ad50f
>> Author: Marius Bakke <address@hidden>
>> Date: Mon Jul 2 12:07:58 2018 +0200
>>
>> build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.
>>
>> This follows up commit d5b5a15a4046362377f1a45d466b43bb6e93d4f which
>> doesn't
>> work because %current-system etc expands before the actual build.
>
> I'm disappointed by this workaround that simply removes the
> 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf. Is that phase needed, or is it truly
> optional? What does the phase accomplish, and how will armhf users be
> disadvantaged by the removal of that phase?
I'm sorry, I forgot to address your actual concerns. The (buggy)
workaround was put in place and discussed in
<https://bugs.gnu.org/30761>. The meat of it can be found in (guix
build-system meson):
;; XXX PatchELF fails to build on armhf, so we skip
;; the 'fix-runpath' phase there for now. It is used
;; to avoid superfluous entries in RUNPATH as described
;; in <https://bugs.gnu.org/28444#46>, so armhf may now
;; have different runtime dependencies from other arches.
Now, I'm not proud of this "workaround", but it's not exactly new, so I
don't see why we should rush to fix it now. Given how late we are in
this staging cycle, I would prefer delaying any proper fix until the
next round.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), (continued)
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Jonathan Brielmaier, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Andreas Enge, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ricardo Wurmus, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Andreas Enge, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/05
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.,
Marius Bakke <=
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/03