Hi,
dan <i@dan.games> skribis:
> I spent some time digging into the rabbit hole. After changing
> the lower function of the copy-build-system to look more like the
> lower function of the gnu-build-system, I'm able to cross compile
> alsa-lib without the --no-grafts flag. The changes I made are
> like:
>
> diff --git a/guix/build-system/copy.scm
> b/guix/build-system/copy.scm
> index d58931b33c..74304b4bfb 100644
> --- a/guix/build-system/copy.scm
> +++ b/guix/build-system/copy.scm
> @@ -66,13 +66,13 @@ (define* (lower name
> (bag
> (name name)
> (system system)
> - (host-inputs `(,@(if source
> + (build-inputs `(,@(if source
> `(("source" ,source))
> '())
> - ,@inputs
> + ,@native-inputs
> ;; Keep the standard inputs of
> 'gnu-build-system'.
> ,@(standard-packages)))
> - (build-inputs native-inputs)
> + (host-inputs inputs)
> (outputs outputs)
> (build copy-build)
> (arguments (strip-keyword-arguments private-keywords
> arguments))))
>
> Can we put everything inside build-inputs? From my understanding,
> copy-build-system shouldn't care about cross-compilation at all.
Intuitively, if ‘copy-build-system’ is about copying
architecture-independent files, then it should do the same thing whether
or not we are cross-compiling.
However, users can and do add phases whose result is
architecture-dependent. Small sample:
• ‘desec-certbot-hook’ captures a reference to curl, so it would get
the wrong one when cross-compiling if we assumed build-inputs =
host-inputs.
• ‘chez-scheme-for-racket-bootstrap-bootfiles’ builds stuff when
cross-compiling. Philip, could you explain the intent and what you
expect here?
So it would seem we can’t just assume everything is a native input like
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/70492 does.
Now, as David and you found out, the use of inputs in
build-system/copy.scm:lower is bogus. It seems that it can be fixed by
following the intended definition of build/host inputs, as David
suggested:
diff --git a/guix/build-system/copy.scm b/guix/build-system/copy.scm
index d58931b33c2..cf0214320bf 100644
--- a/guix/build-system/copy.scm
+++ b/guix/build-system/copy.scm
@@ -66,13 +66,13 @@ (define* (lower name
(bag
(name name)
(system system)
- (host-inputs `(,@(if source
+ (build-inputs `(,@(if source
`(("source" ,source))
'())
- ,@inputs
- ;; Keep the standard inputs of 'gnu-build-system'.
- ,@(standard-packages)))
- (build-inputs native-inputs)
+ ,@native-inputs
+ ;; Keep the standard inputs of 'gnu-build-system'.
+ ,@(standard-packages)))
+ (host-inputs inputs)
(outputs outputs)
(build copy-build)
(arguments (strip-keyword-arguments private-keywords arguments))))
But wait! That’s all theoretical because the bag always has (target #f)
and ‘copy-build’ bundles build and host inputs together, as if doing a
native build.
So it seems like https://issues.guix.gnu.org/70492 (putting everything
in ‘build-inputs’) is OK, after all.
But still, there seem to be some expectation that ‘copy-build-system’
can support cross-compilation for real, so maybe we should add a
‘copy-cross-build’ procedure in addition to the patch above.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
