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 +MpINWO141/oMgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:23:47 +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 qMgrMWO141+0bQAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:23:47 +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 4391B9404FD for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:23:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:54876 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ksBbl-0001IP-UH for larch@yhetil.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:23:45 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44312) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ksBbd-0001IB-8Q for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:23:37 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([64.112.178.59]:52964) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ksBbb-0002n7-0Y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:23:37 -0500 Received: from mhw by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1ksBbO-0001Gm-Mj; Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:23:22 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: Chris Marusich Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: libffi: Add unreleased patch to fix float128 on powerpc64le. In-Reply-To: <87r1nhdo2i.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87y2hqifp3.fsf@netris.org> <87tuseidlk.fsf@netris.org> <87r1nhdo2i.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2020 16:22:21 -0500 Message-ID: <87r1ngi5ef.fsf@netris.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.112.178.59; envelope-from=mhw@netris.org; helo=world.peace.net X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, John Doe , 45252@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.33 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 4391B9404FD X-Spam-Score: -2.33 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: DQIEMmKSmu1B 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. >> 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. > Again, thank you for taking the time to bring these topics up. I'm > always trying to make sure I do things the best way I can in Guix, so I > appreciate the feedback. Thank you, Chris. Warm regards, Mark