Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.

[Mark H Weaver]

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?
>
> 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.

Thanks for this, but I'd still like to know the answer to my questions:
"What does the [fix-runpath] phase accomplish, and how will armhf users
be disadvantaged by the removal of that phase?"

If the 'fix-runpath' phase is not strictly needed, then I would prefer
to remove it on _all_ systems.  If it _is_ needed, then I don't see how
we can simply remove it on 'armhf' systems.

      Thanks,
        Mark