Christopher Baines <m...@cbaines.net> writes: > I've fixed the #<gexp ... in builder script problem for gcc-cross-boot0, > but then I've got a bit stuck on what the remaining issues are.
So, when I say "fixed" here, all I managed to do is stop a gexp ending up in the builder script of gcc-boot0. I managed to fix some of the problems with the changes I made, but then I tried cross building from x86_64-linux, up popped a package which failed to build because it was missing the patch. This is relevant as it blocks machines using childhurds from reconfiguring past the latest core-updates merge. While it caused problems, using gexps at least avoided the problem where you need to have the patch in the native-inputs as well, so to continue going round in circles, that's maybe the direction to now go. As the next step though before using gexps in gcc-11, any packages inheriting from gcc-11 need to be changed to use gexps for the phases. I've attempted to do that in #63329 [1], I'll wait to see what the data service makes of the changes to see how successful I've been at avoiding rebuilds. 1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/63329
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
