From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id ELsoEUdBB2AOSAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:29:59 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id WKwCDUdBB2DlZQAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:29:59 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 800B9940341 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:29:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:40028 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l1xdU-0001bU-O8 for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:29:56 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49624) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l1xRy-0006y4-1Q for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:18:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40345) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l1xRx-000773-Oz for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:18:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1xRx-000470-Js for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:18:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#45826: SBCL / Common Lisp packages fail to build on aarch64 Resent-From: Leo Famulari Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:18:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 45826 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 45826-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B45826.161108743915753 (code B ref 45826); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:18:01 +0000 Received: (at 45826) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Jan 2021 20:17:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51891 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1xRG-000461-MZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:18 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:54683) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l1xRD-00045i-3Y for 45826@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:16 -0500 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A4665C023D; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:09 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=msGFE9ukuQ9yMv5Oy8+/8kKwNu5VGvgKmDI2hA++of0=; b=ZQwyvWdOI0Y4 QhguuqbGKJUPVMJYFumBZGy//O6yLyQIMUhJxa7JFY74QdOro0bdjBAI+Nz+o4QA IxLrMmZze0fE0D/MB8L88Ki8DDwvKjb8zm28gWf/pcGIaftUiJdHEVUfJCNSTUgl 3/5yrrRwALDeZawsm80DaKYjvWTiWb0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=msGFE9ukuQ9yMv5Oy8+/8kKwNu5VGvgKmDI2hA++o f0=; b=V9C7Awi5dG34dh+qXDad81O/TZhnxU1W5HMvkCmxLFrUSUHgKN55D4uZM jxcCuIoE7KiZWwJUw+bODI/bRj23Flv6zwpzIP9Wjv33NxlV8Ykqu8ZG6ARgHSnU 01IrmBxp0NQlOi+3tpvgJLOscWhiAKSb9BuNFB7RK8xn6HoUR0i7cR/Oz4uJ7ZC1 WYJbn37zi0FOm3TE59hCtT3D7zCNd8IuEzmFUyg7syweQM6DiIfl18K2TUbysdrV PErCU7tPEFwHPtGvsl6/cntruSLJyE+zD9eqA94npyeUPxPuJdllSJE98kxDi+LJ cEut9iFhPwtSccUNL8tkE4TC1Zxww== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledruddtgddufeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtugfgjgesthekredttddtudenucfhrhhomhepnfgvohcu hfgrmhhulhgrrhhiuceolhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvgeqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepueeugedugfdvgfevuedvleduleefjefhgefgjeetgfegkedukefhvdefleej hefgnecukfhppedutddtrdduuddrudeiledruddukeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpe dtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehlvghosehfrghmuhhlrghrihdrnhgrmhgv X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 432CD24005E; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 15:17:05 -0500 From: Leo Famulari Message-ID: References: <87eeioczws.fsf@yamatai> <877dod1al9.fsf@yamatai> <87mtx7hpwy.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn21hxwp.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87pn21hxwp.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 45826@debbugs.gnu.org, guix-sysadmin@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.35 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=famulari.name header.s=mesmtp header.b=ZQwyvWdO; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm1 header.b=V9C7Awi5; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 800B9940341 X-Spam-Score: -1.35 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: R8iI1K998ZeK On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 02:13:58PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Now, I think we should avoid papering over CI configuration issues (did > I get that right?) by changing package definitions. Yes, that's idiomatic English, if that is what you were asking about. And I agree, the package definitions shouldn't include workarounds for CI problems.