Hi, Efraim Flashner writes: > "regular powerpc", ie macppc/ppc32/powerpc-linux-gnu, does have some > bootstrap binaries built but isn't near ready for merging. Go ahead and > make any changes necessary. Mark H Weaver writes: > Hi Efraim, > > Efraim Flashner writes: >> "regular powerpc", ie macppc/ppc32/powerpc-linux-gnu, does have some >> bootstrap binaries built but isn't near ready for merging. Go ahead and >> make any changes necessary. > > I appreciate that, but if rebuilding the world on regular powerpc would > significantly add to the burden of even a single developer, then it's > probably not worth it. I suggested fixing the powerpc64le case now only > because it was just added a few days ago, and more generally to raise > awareness about how best to run the 'patch' program in Guix. > > If it's truly no extra burden, then you could change "--batch" to > "--force" on line 69 of libffi.c (in the "powerpc-*" case). OK. I've made this change on master in commit 662e7e28d576ada91fc9dec7d27c100666114f03. Mark H Weaver writes: > Hi Chris, > > Chris Marusich writes: > >> Mark H Weaver writes: >> >>> Earlier, I wrote: >>>> When invoking 'patch' in Guix, you should *always* use "--force" instead >>>> of "--batch". >>> >>> (See for my earlier message). >> >> Thank you for letting me know about this. I didn't know about the >> difference between "--batch" and "--force". I agree we should use >> "--force" instead of "--batch". How do you recommend that I proceed? > > Simply changing "--batch" to "--force" on line 79 (in the powerpc64le-* > case, i.e. the one that was just added) seems like the right thing. > That will force a rebuild of almost everything on the powerpc64le-* > architecture, but should not cause any rebuilds on other architectures. OK, I've made this change on master in commit fdb90e9ee8a578c88ef3a33067e8a532e43ae7b8. >>> Since writing the message above, I've found another problem in the same >>> commit (7eaa2f24ea77cddbb4bbc2d6a6905673a36f8f99): it searches for the >>> 'patch' program in 'inputs'. This is a mistake, because when >>> cross-compiling, 'inputs' will contain software compiled to run on the >>> target system instead of the build system. >> >> Is it searching for the "patch" program, or is it searching for the >> patch file? It looks to me like the code is searching for the patch >> file in inputs, not the "patch" program. > > LOL, you're right, I got confused. Please disregard my second email in > this thread, and apologies for that noise. No worries! Thanks again for your help. -- Chris