Re: Bug#1064998: guile-lib: broken package when cross building

Re: Bug#1064998: guile-lib: broken package when cross building

[Vagrant Cascadian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1582 bytes --]

Forwarding this upstream, originally submitted in the Debian bug
tracking system at:

  https://bugs.debian.org/1064998

On 2024-02-28, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> guile-lib actually does cross build, but we still track it as cross
> build failure, because the resulting package contains a build
> architecture multiarch tuple and that trips post-build sanity checks.
>
> The root cause of the failure lies in the way the ccache directory is
> determined. There are actually several ways this is being done during
> configure - some of which work correctly - and ultimately, the last
> attempt using GUILE_SITE_CCACHE_DIR gets to set the value wrongly.
> Surprisingly, there already is a more complete and working
> implementation GUILE_SITE_DIR and simply reusing that makes it compute
> the ccache directory correctly. Is the attached patch acceptable?
>
> Helmut
> --- guile-lib-0.2.7.orig/m4/guile-ext.m4
> +++ guile-lib-0.2.7/m4/guile-ext.m4
> @@ -63,12 +63,4 @@
>  # The variable is marked for substitution, as by @code{AC_SUBST}.
>  #
>  AC_DEFUN([GUILE_SITE_CCACHE_DIR],
> - [AC_REQUIRE([GUILE_PROGS])
> -  AC_MSG_CHECKING(for Guile site ccache directory)
> -  GUILE_SITE_CCACHE=`$GUILE -c "(display (%site-ccache-dir))"`
> -  if test "$GUILE_SITE_CCACHE" = ""; then
> -     AC_MSG_FAILURE(site ccache dir not found)
> -  fi
> -  AC_MSG_RESULT($GUILE_SITE_CCACHE)
> -  AC_SUBST(GUILE_SITE_CCACHE)
> - ])
> + [AC_REQUIRE([GUILE_SITE_DIR])])

Would the guile-lib developers consider merging this? Are there any
use-cases where this is inappropriate?

Thanks!

live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

Re: Bug#1064998: guile-lib: broken package when cross building

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Vagrant,

+CC David, which maintains Guile-Lib.

Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> writes:

> Forwarding this upstream, originally submitted in the Debian bug
> tracking system at:
>
>   https://bugs.debian.org/1064998
>
> On 2024-02-28, Helmut Grohne wrote:
>> guile-lib actually does cross build, but we still track it as cross
>> build failure, because the resulting package contains a build
>> architecture multiarch tuple and that trips post-build sanity checks.
>>
>> The root cause of the failure lies in the way the ccache directory is
>> determined. There are actually several ways this is being done during
>> configure - some of which work correctly - and ultimately, the last
>> attempt using GUILE_SITE_CCACHE_DIR gets to set the value wrongly.
>> Surprisingly, there already is a more complete and working
>> implementation GUILE_SITE_DIR and simply reusing that makes it compute
>> the ccache directory correctly. Is the attached patch acceptable?
>>
>> Helmut
>> --- guile-lib-0.2.7.orig/m4/guile-ext.m4
>> +++ guile-lib-0.2.7/m4/guile-ext.m4
>> @@ -63,12 +63,4 @@
>>  # The variable is marked for substitution, as by @code{AC_SUBST}.
>>  #
>>  AC_DEFUN([GUILE_SITE_CCACHE_DIR],
>> - [AC_REQUIRE([GUILE_PROGS])
>> -  AC_MSG_CHECKING(for Guile site ccache directory)
>> -  GUILE_SITE_CCACHE=`$GUILE -c "(display (%site-ccache-dir))"`
>> -  if test "$GUILE_SITE_CCACHE" = ""; then
>> -     AC_MSG_FAILURE(site ccache dir not found)
>> -  fi
>> -  AC_MSG_RESULT($GUILE_SITE_CCACHE)
>> -  AC_SUBST(GUILE_SITE_CCACHE)
>> - ])
>> + [AC_REQUIRE([GUILE_SITE_DIR])])
>
> Would the guile-lib developers consider merging this? Are there any
> use-cases where this is inappropriate?

This looks reasonable to me.  If I understand correctly, it makes use of
the guile.m4 already provided macro (GUILE_SITE_DIR) instead of (poorly)
implementing it as 'guile -c "(display (%site-ccache-dir))"'.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Re: Bug#1064998: guile-lib: broken package when cross building

[David Pirotte]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 571 bytes --]

Hello debian maintainers,
Vagrant,

> Forwarding this upstream, originally submitted in the Debian bug
> tracking system at:

>   https://bugs.debian.org/1064998
> ...

> Would the guile-lib developers consider merging this? Are there any
> use-cases where this is inappropriate?

Certainly! Thanks for the report, it somehow did skip my attention
when i worked on this (a long long time ago ...), that calling
GUILE_SITE_DIR also defines GUILE_SITE_CCACHE

I'll fix this for the next release.

> Thanks!

I am the one who thanks (all of you)
David

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]