guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: powerpc64[le]-linux port progress


From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Subject: Re: powerpc64[le]-linux port progress
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 10:01:03 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)

dftxbs3e writes:

Hi!

> On 2/22/20 1:34 PM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>> Have you tried building static gawk standalone and check it for that
>> bash?  You could do something like
>>
>>    grep -ao '/gnu/store/e*-bash' $(./pre-inst-env guix build -e '(@@ (gnu 
>> packages make-bootstrap) %static-binaries)')
>>
>> On my x86_64-linux system, I get
>>
>>    /gnu/store/eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-bash
> Yes! I used the strings utility. I get two references to bash-static in
> the store with 'eeeee'.

Ah, "good".

> Speaking of which, do you know if it's possible
> to be spawned into an environment where %static-binaries's gawk package
> (and only that one) sources are extracted, patched and configured? So
> that I can investigate the inclusion of bash-static comfortably.

You can either do something like

    ./pre-inst-env guix build -e '(@@ (gnu packages bootstrap) 
%static-binaries)' --keep-failed --no-offload

and edit the #:builder to return #f, or copy %static-binaries into a
%static-gawk where you strip out other stuff.

>> For the new Scheme-only bootstrap, I solved a similar problem for
>> %bootstrap-mes by replacing the /gnu/store/eee* store-references with
>> actual bootstrap file names; see `%bootstrap-mes-rewired' in
>> core-updates 
>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/commencement.scm?h=core-updates#n251
>>
> I hear, however that smells like a hack to me, I'd like to avoid
> resorting to such unless absolutely necessary.

I'm not entirely sure which is better; but we chose this in order not
having to touch the bootstrap binary for mes.  Also, I don't know "where
you are"; when trying to get "it to work", cutting corners initially
works for me :-)

> How come it's not
> possible to find where that bash-static reference is being inserted?

Computers are hard?  It's probably easy to find when you see it...

Greetings,
janneke

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <address@hidden> | GNU LilyPond http://lilypond.org
Freelance IT http://JoyofSource.com | Avatar® http://AvatarAcademy.com



reply via email to

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