[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug#38803] [PATCH] gnu: elfutils: Update to 0.178

From: Marius Bakke
Subject: [bug#38803] [PATCH] gnu: elfutils: Update to 0.178
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:54:52 +0100
User-agent: Notmuch/0.29.3 ( Emacs/26.3 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)


Mark Wielaard <address@hidden> writes:

> This introduces debuginfod support which requires a couple of new inputs.
> * gnu/ (dist_patch_DATA): Remove elfutils-tests-ptrace.patch.
>   Add elfutils-0.178-tests-build-id.patch.
> * gnu/packages/elf.scm (elfutils): Update to 0.178
>   [native-inputs]: Add iproute and pkg-config.
>   [inputs]: Add cpio, libarchive, libmicrohttpd, libcurl, rpm and sqlite.
>   [synopsis]: Updated.
>   [description]: Updated.
>   [license]: List all licenses used.
> * gnu/packages/patches/elfutils-tests-ptrace.patch: Removed. Fixed upstream.
> * gnu/packages/patches/elfutils-0.178-tests-build-id.patch: New. Patches
>   backported from upstream git.

Thank you for these improvements.  Could you submit the synopsis and
description update separately?

I worry about all the new inputs.  This patch effectively makes us
unable to update all these inputs outside of the 'staging' or
'core-updates' cycles.

What is the difference in 'guix size elfutils' with and without this

Would it make sense to have a separate 'elfutils-minimal' for use in
Mesa, and expose the debuginfod-enabled variant as a separate package?
We could "hide" the minimal variant so that end users get the expected

Also, for the patches, please add links to upstream commits in the patch
files, see some of the other patches for examples.  I would also prefer
if they were separate files, seeing as the two commits do different

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]