From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: 01/01: gnu: boost: Update to 1.58.0. Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:25:56 +0200 Message-ID: <20150710192556.GA3066@debian> References: <20150708211909.12880.83730@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <87mvz6kzw6.fsf@netris.org> <87a8v5ng8o.fsf@netris.org> <20150709231755.GA16506@debian> <87mvz4lzuf.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47575) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDdvx-00025Q-Uq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:26:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDdvt-000831-Nx for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:26:05 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.130]:58440) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZDdvt-00082p-Ef for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:26:01 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mvz4lzuf.fsf@netris.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:52:24PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > I'm not 100% sure what's happening either, but more packages are > becoming broken over time. I think it has to do with the fact that > 'git' is one of the broken packages, and other packages that fetch their > source code using 'git' are becoming broken whenever Guix decides it's > time to try re-downloading the source, e.g.: Okay, that is an interesting explanation! > I've reverted the patch. After we have a solution to this problem, we > can build it in a separate branch. I think we should have done this > anyway, since updating Boost entails a lot of rebuilds, and has a > history of being problematic on non-Intel platforms. With only 69 dependent packages, it did not look like a big risk! It just built with the patch on my mips machine: Performing configuration checks - 32-bit : yes - arm : no - mips1 : no - power : no - sparc : no - x86 : no - combined : no I still find it suspicious that it is not recognised as "mips1"; it may have to do with the different ABIs, since when I build it on debian, it says "mips1 : yes". I will push this to a wip-boost branch, and try to build a dependent package locally. I wonder if I should base wip-boost on openssl-update; but with only 69 dependent packages (if the count is true), it probably does not matter. Andreas > > Does that make sense? > > Mark