[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 20:06:08 +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?
>
> This feels like "sweeping the problem under the rug" to me.
It *is* sweeping the problem under the rug, no doubt. The only
alternatives I can see is fixing patchelf on armhf, which is difficult
for me without access to hardware; fixing Meson itself, which may be
easier, but then we may not be able to merge staging in a long time; or
implement patchelf functionality in Guix as Ludovic started with
<https://bugs.gnu.org/31028> and is currently in 'core-updates'.
Do you have other suggestions?
>> Fixes <https://bugs.gnu.org/31719>.
>
> I don't see the connection between that bug and this commit.
> How does this commit fix that bug?
Whoops, typo. It should be <https://bugs.gnu.org/31971>.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
- Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Mark H Weaver, 2018/07/02
- 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., Mark H Weaver, 2018/07/03
- Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/04
- RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Mark H Weaver, 2018/07/04
- 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.), Kei Kebreau, 2018/07/04
- 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.), Kei Kebreau, 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.), 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