On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:24:33PM +0100, Joachim Schiele wrote: > if they are good patches we will merge them!
I appreciate the enthusiasm. :) Unfortunately the mailing list doesn't seem to do many patch reviews which conflicts with my want to do things slowly. The only way I can see merging happening is if I showered a ton of patches for review, some related to ARM, some not but still required for the Novena, and hope people review them and cherry pick them. I suppose I could always privately contact the maintainers of wherever I'm patching, but that feels a little too opaque for my tastes. Maintaining my own fork public nixpkgs is impossible given how long compile times are when it comes to Nix. Rebasing could take a few days on my stripped down install since I don't (nor does anyone seem to) have an ARM build farm, I shudder to think if any Novena users want to run more than i3, it'd probably take a magnitude longer considering some builds only work single-threaded, and as we focus more on reproducible builds I imagine we'll be reverting back for things like Haskell. At that point it may actually be impossible to build and run NixOS using just an ARM machine and no binary caches. Pessimism aside, an ARM build farm is a solvable, unrelated problem to my patches. As long as I can get some review upstreaming shouldn't be a problem. > patchelf is used to deploy the initial bootstrap-tools. later one there > is only minimal use, as you already said, for binary only applications. > > please provide an exaple, where patchelf is doing something wrong with > some paste from the shell. > > thank you Installing vim_configurable on ARM seems to do the trick. I can't reproduce it right now, mysterious. Perhaps I have a patched version, I'll check later. Cheers, Jookia. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
