From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Bakke Subject: bug#36882: Qemu 4.2.0 build for x86_64-linux fails Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 23:01:19 +0100 Message-ID: <874kv6ju1c.fsf@devup.no> References: <87k14gnqng.fsf@gmail.com> <87mu9b3crd.fsf@gnu.org> <87a75a5taw.fsf@gmail.com> <87o8tptu7u.fsf@gnu.org> <87ftf0nx7n.fsf@gmail.com> <87tv3gm59r.fsf@gnu.org> <875zfuag6v.fsf@gmail.com> <874kveafns.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51036) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j8t8U-0006TU-Lf for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 17:02:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j8t8T-0001g2-Pk for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 17:02:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60697) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j8t8T-0001fw-Mg for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 17:02:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1j8t8T-0003Cb-LW for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2020 17:02:01 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <874kveafns.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Mathieu Othacehe , Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 36882@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Hi Mathieu, Mathieu Othacehe writes: > So if it's ok for you, I'll try to implement a GCC hack so that we can > keep using C_INCLUDE_PATH on core-updates and have QEMU building, as you > proposed. Did you get anywhere with this? As Ludovic mentioned, it might make sense to work around it in gnu-build-system too if patching GCC turns out to be difficult. If we can't find a workaround in the coming weeks, perhaps we should postpone the issue and add package-specific workarounds in the mean time? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAl5dgi8ACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPr8gQf+I3yi9nGhTfj/vc0VIl0wxpb0ggKk5RJUiuAY7A0nfEF9JkIJkL1MFM0d rAPa1LToOsIXuYhDuEeOvxpASs2xb1wdrG1jbsSenO9eCz3FGbV6pEeKaapVuxj7 fJ7T1oX3CACsMSaxdPQfG5pYf3qCt28IAPxxQol60/4mY8rVMtMC83VSGED5AXR6 MDvtJ0EKiy8cMejpoRUx2L4CJ1PTZzlzGmXXa6zkk+PsuppVeFPmCNLJm9q+BK+p O6Ll24NzmZlb8zhIJu+ou576FJ9wKcMbHaG/smkLrpJ7oU7/8XJY/7ScT1yP7WEF 7HFCsvyOQdkMlEyOe0TAx83ykS+cSQ== =MY/y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--