Hello, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis:
> Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> writes: [...] >> I'm sorry, I forgot to address your actual concerns. The (buggy) >> workaround was put in place and discussed in >> <https://bugs.gnu.org/30761>. The meat of it can be found in (guix >> build-system meson): >> >> ;; XXX PatchELF fails to build on armhf, so we skip >> ;; the 'fix-runpath' phase there for now. It is used >> ;; to avoid superfluous entries in RUNPATH as described >> ;; in <https://bugs.gnu.org/28444#46>, so armhf may now >> ;; have different runtime dependencies from other arches. > > Thanks for this, but I'd still like to know the answer to my questions: > "What does the [fix-runpath] phase accomplish, and how will armhf users > be disadvantaged by the removal of that phase?" As discussed in <https://bugs.gnu.org/31970> and <https://bugs.gnu.org/31974>, Meson does not (or did not) adjust RUNPATHs upon installation (contrary to what Libtool does, for instance.) Consequently, the RUNPATH is left with /tmp/guix-build-… entries, which is not great but okay, but more importantly if usually lacks OUTPUT/lib as well. However, the commit Marius referred to¹ as well as what you reported for Epiphany in #31974 suggest that things are improving in Meson proper, and that we might be able to remove that ‘fix-runpath’ phase altogether soon. I think we should simply try building things without ‘fix-runpath’ and see if ‘validate-runpath’ reports anything. Thoughts? Ludo’. ¹ https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/commit/e3757e3d3cf24327c89dd3fc40f6cc933510f676