[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GSoC] Guix + Hurd continuation
From: |
Manolis Ragkousis |
Subject: |
Re: [GSoC] Guix + Hurd continuation |
Date: |
Thu, 2 Jul 2015 16:38:54 +0300 |
Hello everyone,
On 2 July 2015 at 12:12, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
> 0. Run Guix’s ‘./configure --with-courage && make’ and see what
> happens.
> 1. ‘guix-daemon’ must work correctly on GNU/Hurd.
Already started working on them. Will report back today on my first results.
>
> 2. When building natively, surely you’ll find out that some packages
> do not build (PATH_MAX!), and that there are assumptions in
> hurd.scm and base.scm, such as the fact that GNU/Hurd is a
> cross-compilation target and not a native system.
I already have a pretty solid idea of what you mean. Will work around
them as I progress.
> 3. In parallel to that, I should review wip-hurd again and apply the
> patches to a new ‘core-updates’ branch.
Okay.
> 4. Instead of sitting idle watching build logs ;-), it Would Be Nice™
> to implement the ‘mount’ and ‘umount’ functions for GNU/Hurd in
> libc, with support for MS_BIND using /hurd/firmlink.
> Of course libc hacking can be quite involved. So ideally Samuel,
> Thomas, and others would give you detailed guidance and/or hack
> power. What do people think?
Yes, I think now it's the right time to start this. Expect questions
as I work on this. :-)
Meanwhile if the hurd guys have something to point out, please do. :-)
> Another can of worms I forgot to mention is <hurd/paths.h>, which
> assumes that translators live in /hurd, whereas we’ll rather have them
> in /gnu/store/…/hurd.
A question. Isn't it possible, that this will break the Hurd expected
behavior? I think I should get
a better understanding of how things work.
Manolis