Re: [PATCH] gnu: add lispf4

[Nils Gillmann]

Leo Famulari <address@hidden> writes:

> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 11:30:21AM +0100, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>> Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> writes:
>> > On Tue, 09 Feb 2016 02:31:51 +0100
>> > Nils Gillmann <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> >
>> >> But now as I did guix pull and installed it from there, and do
>> >> not run it inside guix environment, I encounter an error I did
>> >> not see coming as it worked in the environment.
>
> [...]
>
>> > If you replace the install phase sometimes you have to change the 
>> > permissions
>> > yourself. Try searching for #o555.
>> 
>> Okay, thanks.
>> I tried this but it doesn't change in the environment.
>> On another system, in Debian, the permissions (in my users home)
>> are:
>> SYSATOMS: 644
>> lispf4: 755
>> BASIC.IMG 644
>> 
>> without changes, current lispf4 from master:
>> address@hidden ~/projects/guix_project/guix [env]$ ./pre-inst-env guix build 
>> lispf4
>> /gnu/store/7rkw1rhn4ijap9b936waspki03260lpb-lispf4-0.0.0-1-174d876
>> /gnu/store/871yzidvz2h4kpjx9sb116b0lshr88dn-lispf4-0.0.0-1-174d876-doc
>> address@hidden ~/projects/guix_project/guix [env]$ ls -al 
>> /gnu/store/7rkw1rhn4ijap9b936waspki03260lpb-lispf4-0.0.0-1-174d876/bin/
>> total 200
>> dr-xr-xr-x 2 root guixbuild  4096 Jan  1  1970 ./
>> dr-xr-xr-x 3 root guixbuild  4096 Jan  1  1970 ../
>> -r--r--r-- 4 root guixbuild 94972 Jan  1  1970 BASIC.IMG
>> -r-xr-xr-x 8 root guixbuild 92088 Jan  1  1970 lispf4
>> -r--r--r-- 8 root guixbuild  2105 Jan  1  1970 SYSATOMS
>> 
>> If I try 555 for both files, the output with the rights is below.
>> I wonder, do I need to set it to 644 as it happens on the Debian
>> system? Should I use guix system vm to test this? I expected that
>> environment behaves like what pushed as a patch...
>
> I'm not sure — did you figure out a solution to the problem with the
> package?

Yes and no.
I am not sure, as I don't know Guix enough currently.
On Debian, compiled in $HOME I get 644 on SYSATOMS + BASIC.IMG.
If this is the default, should I just assume for a moment that
this will be okay to set for (chmod) in the install procedure and
patch it as such?

I'm distracted by problems out of my control currently, but I'm
still trying to get this solved.
-- 
ng