From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: bootstrap guile version mismatch on core-updates Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 11:19:03 +0300 Message-ID: <20190812081903.GA8000@E2140> References: <2b8438ce-750a-b16e-c197-ced535359a0b@free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56383) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hx5Xq-0005Sy-FM for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 04:19:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hx5Xp-00066w-9h for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 04:19:10 -0400 Received: from flashner.co.il ([178.62.234.194]:34492) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hx5Xp-00066h-3Z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 12 Aug 2019 04:19:09 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2b8438ce-750a-b16e-c197-ced535359a0b@free.fr> 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" To: dftxbs3e Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 04:12:00PM +0200, dftxbs3e wrote: > Hello, >=20 > It seems that guile2.2 is built by make-bootstrap.scm here: > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/make-bootstr= ap.scm?h=3Dcore-updates#n625 >=20 > but guile2.0 is expected here: > https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/bootstrap.sc= m?h=3Dcore-updates#n373 >=20 > For the purpose of my ongoing port to powerpc64le-linux-gnu, I applied > the attached patch, but obviously that one wont work with the previously > built tarballs for x86_64 etc. Things would have to be split in parts > somehow, for old bootstraps with version 2.0 and newer ones with version > 2.2. >=20 > Thanks >=20 I had a similar issue with grep vs egrep/fgrep when I was porting aarch64. My suggestion is to "make unilateral changes" to the source where necessary to make the bootstrap work and then return to it later and clean it up so it doesn't break all the other architectures. If you do want to hack at it now, the two things I can think of immediately are '(version-major+minor (package-version %bootstrap-guile))' to see if it's 2.0.x or 2.2.x, or %target-system, which I found to be a bit harder to work with that early in the bootstrap process. I don't have my 32-bit PPC machine out or I could check to see what I tried on that machine, but I think I just changed it to 2.2 and figured I'd come back to it later. --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAl1RILoACgkQQarn3Mo9 g1EAgw/+KlBJON4+Xyp5iVnS+aSjowZ9TAwVtXEkF+fGPD5DfDQajCVwwOireYlp ORjL82BvZTmgfGvGVmFvVr1OrGkk2v9XtWmGZPdgUezc2YpYDz2X8Mdo4i5G5unb nL3Zve44jXBUdfeLqdJkq+pSBGAyuoTuaFbTrKZ3/sCUi6atjj+PTELDHTnZjj1+ ud6+hqP7BTDQ6iwnpQYZYIb5qXqVNSBtktrE5e4iWCGJtJcceiNsZRGjLXs0kOJa PWC9d7bDmazG27cU0D8Uo5Qr1JSyNSkEhQ6uP0ropu5Diugld7+gAF9PJQ4WEax+ RF5GOn/5PdrnOuSrp/TZyE8LtGyVTTs+vF6RUwNyDnt1Jm12NmAl7QpzH0nzAg9e hg6Bv7tH7X+mEuPkXMZsUjZWQY9Mbq/JYea8NTEDsGN2aWq3EDfBFV2ok99r6HgL t/BOIMwzvjWkOMS20kEd2HiX4uKS1gAvNWEEgfr7vku6w3H4hnd2X94Em1JqC2tF O19Jbko1M2QVe1P4HG4Wa/qsJ9Xu+zEAKJm5DN//6B45AuhpCksMVahZdEBLUgRk x/bp+tBCzVY2TQNzt2yzgUhxALhwTDGJsDnVw1i1WTkYzne8bhvTa/8Kkb5WKnIi uL7VpKlqt/z96CLQ8UW/IJGmRly5QKQ5RCTp7uoTzK2mRWcANsc= =QoUN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pWyiEgJYm5f9v55/--