Hi Chris,

Chris Marusich <cmmarusich@gmail.com> writes:

(snip)

> It seems fishy that on aarch64-linux, there is no NEEDED entry for
> ld-linux-aarch64.so.1 in the ELF files under consideration.  As shown
> above, a similar entry DOES exist on both x86_64-linux and
> powerpc64le-linux.  For this reason, it seems plausible that maybe the
> missing NEEDED entry is bad.  However, I don't really know enough to say
> whether it's indicative of a problem with our aarch64-linux port.  Is
> there an aarch64-linux or ELF expert in the room who can help?  :-)
>
> It also seems fishy that, on powerpc64le-linux, file-needed/recursive
> apparently resolves ld64.so.2 successfully, even though it
> simultaneously includes it in the "failed to resolve" list.  Confusing
> as that is to me, I don't know if that's really related to the
> aarch64-linux issue.
>
> More investigation is needed...

I'm afraid I don't have any new insight if this is an issue or just
working as intended. Given we have a limited bandwidth to address this
thoroughly, would it make sense to apply a temporary work-around in the
mean time? I'd be good for at least guix to build on aarch64 in the 1.4
release.

I have the attached patch in my tree for instance (along with an update
of the guix package), and I've not noticed any issues on a rockpro64,
running cgit, DHCP and dnsmasq. That's just anecdotal :-), but I'm also
thinking if we unblock the guix package then the farm might catch other
issues that could help getting to the bottom of this.

WDYT?

Thanks,
Pierre