[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: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf. |
Date: |
Tue, 03 Jul 2018 15:20:08 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Marius,
Marius Bakke <address@hidden> writes:
> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 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?
None that I expect to be taken seriously by this community. I'd just
like to point out that given the way things are going, I could only
recommend Guix to x86_64 users. Almost all of our users are on x86_64,
and they are impatient to always have the latest software. In practice,
when upgrades would break *any* other system, we move ahead anyway, just
like we did with the last 'core-updates' merge, and just like you wish
to do now with the 'staging' branch.
The end result is that the wishes of the x86_64-using majority are the
only ones that seem to matter in this community, and other users are
frequently left in a bad spot. This makes it increasingly unlikely that
we'll ever gain a significant number of non-x86_64 users.
I'm very troubled by this, because I intend to move away from x86_64.
Unless there is a significant change in the priorities of the Guix
project, I don't think I will be able to continue using Guix.
>>> 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>.
In my view, this commit does not fix that bug.
Mark
- 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, 2018/07/02
- Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.,
Mark H Weaver <=
- 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
- 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