Hey Ludo,
> Do we need to do it for ‘lower-object’? I think that one is (almost)
> always called from a gexp compiler where it’s explicitly passed ‘system’
> and ‘target’.
Yes because of lower-object call in "system-derivation" procedure of
(gnu services).
> Also, a test or two would be welco
Hi!
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
> I think you're right! Pushed it as
> f30d84d32db0f4f6cb84e139868e1727a7dc0a51 on core-updates.
>
> Now the good news is that we are one patch away from having core-updates
> to cross-compile bare-bones.tmpl system! This is the patch attached,
> we've been discussi
Hello,
> The only downside will be potentially an extra glibc download/build to
> build the locale set, but that’s probably OK.
>
> WDYT?
I think you're right! Pushed it as
f30d84d32db0f4f6cb84e139868e1727a7dc0a51 on core-updates.
Now the good news is that we are one patch away from having core
Hi,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
>>> But I'd like to avoid that. I'll see if I can figure out something
>>> better after a good night.
>>
>> Couldn't find much better, here's a patch, tell my what you think!
>
> I pushed a patch removing all canonical-packages calls, except the one
> for the defaul
Hey Ludo,
>> But I'd like to avoid that. I'll see if I can figure out something
>> better after a good night.
>
> Couldn't find much better, here's a patch, tell my what you think!
I pushed a patch removing all canonical-packages calls, except the one
for the default-locales-libcs variable.
Ab
Hello,
> We could use a thunk field to write something like:
>
> --8<---cut here---start->8---
> (define (default-locale-libcs ...)
> (if target glibc (canonical-package glibc))
> --8<---cut here---end--->8---
>
> But I'd l
Hi,
> It’s more than I thought but I think it’s OK. (Also, how come
> bare-bones takes 1.5 GiB?!)
That's one of my next subject of investigation :)
>> (define %default-locale-libcs
>>;; The libcs for which we build locales by default.
>> - (list (canonical-package glibc)))
>> + (list g
Hola!
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
>> Two simple solutions here, I think:
>>
>> 1. Make ‘packages’ a thunked field.
>>
>> 2. Stop using ‘canonical-package’ altogether in ‘%base-packages’.
>>
>> I actually have a preference for #2. We’d need to check what impact it
>> has on the system closure
Hola,
> However, the hack doesn’t work for things like the ‘packages’ field of
> because it’s not a thunked field.
I see! Thanks for explaining.
>
> Two simple solutions here, I think:
>
> 1. Make ‘packages’ a thunked field.
>
> 2. Stop using ‘canonical-package’ altogether in ‘%base-packag
Hi,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
>> This is expected: packages in ‘%final-inputs’ (those returned by
>> ‘canonical-package’) are rooted in the bootstrap graph and cannot be
>> cross-compiled.
>
> Looking at canonical-package in (gnu packages commencement), I see that
> there's already a switch on (
Hello Ludo,
Thanks for your explanation :)
> This is expected: packages in ‘%final-inputs’ (those returned by
> ‘canonical-package’) are rooted in the bootstrap graph and cannot be
> cross-compiled.
Looking at canonical-package in (gnu packages commencement), I see that
there's already a switch
Hi Mathieu,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
> Small mistake sorry. This fails:
>
> guix build --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -e "((@ (gnu packages base)
> canonical-package) (@ (gnu packages base) grep))"
>
>
> while this succeeds:
>
> guix build -e "((@ (gnu packages base) canonical-package) (@ (gnu pac
Small mistake sorry. This fails:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
guix build --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -e "((@ (gnu packages base)
canonical-package) (@ (gnu packages base) grep))"
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
while this su
Hello,
This command fails:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
guix build -e "((@ (gnu packages base) canonical-package) (@ (gnu packages
base) grep))"
--8<---cut here---end--->8---
with this output:
--8<---cut her
14 matches
Mail list logo
