Hello Guix, Hello Hurd Last week I didn't send a report on my progress because I didn't believe I have anything of importance to report. So here is a recap of what I did these two weeks, the problems I came up with, and the problems I currently have.
1) I sent the patches of the two previews weeks for review, modified them according to Ludo's suggestions and most of them are pushed in the right branches. 2) I thought last week I was close in producing the tarballs. I was wrong. There is a problem when building %gcc-static that the build fail at libgcc because it targets the wrong system. This is what I was investigating the whole week. While trying to find what's wrong I stumbled upon these problems: 3) Found a circular dependency between glibc-hurd-headers and hurd-minimal. Resolved it and sent a patch to the list. (Ludovic please give it a look :-)) 4) tarball-package in make-bootstrap.scm does not give the right name to the packages it produces. Changed tarball-package so now we can pass the target to it and as a result it will use the proper name. 5) gcc-4.7 passes "--with-native-system-header-dir=" which points to the wrong libc. According to my understanding this should point to the proper libc to be used in the target system. Am I right? 6) So the problem with %gcc-static is that libdecnumber: sets "dpd" while libgcc: sets "no" and we get a build failure because it can't find "no" in libdecnumber. Found a similar case here https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-03/msg00941.html . Turned everything in make-bootstrap.scm into procedures so I am sure it evaluates to the right libc, patched libdecunmber's and libgcc's configure.ac so they run AC_CANONICAL_{BUILD,HOST,TARGET} and made sure with the repl that the right glibc is used. And still can't find how to solve it. Any suggestions? I have probably forgot some things but I believe I reported most of them. I would really like your opinion on these problems so I can continue. Manolis