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 CIBdCzfgyl5FBAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:59:35 +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 CKExBzfgyl4wJgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:59:35 +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 8C2A29400EF for ; Sun, 24 May 2020 20:59:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:38208 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jcxiX-0001FZ-Gt for larch@yhetil.org; Sun, 24 May 2020 16:59:33 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45456) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jcxiN-0001FP-Ab for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 May 2020 16:59:23 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:37500) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jcxiN-0006Js-1r; Sun, 24 May 2020 16:59:23 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=54928 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jcxiL-0005Hx-5n; Sun, 24 May 2020 16:59:22 -0400 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= To: zimoun Subject: Re: Exact same 'call-with-temporary-directory' defined twice? References: <87wo5pi2yn.fsf@gnu.org> <87lflqmdo5.fsf@gnu.org> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 6 Prairial an 228 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 22:59:19 +0200 In-Reply-To: (zimoun's message of "Wed, 20 May 2020 14:10:08 +0200") Message-ID: <87tv05yrq0.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 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-Spam-Score: -0.01 X-TUID: OdRCOoN8M8/C Hi, zimoun skribis: > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 23:53, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > >> > Naively: does it make sense to move it to "guix/build/utils.scm"? >> >> No because it depends on (guix build syscalls) for =E2=80=98mkdtemp!=E2= =80=99 and >> there=E2=80=99s currently that assumption that (1) (guix build utils) ca= n be >> used on a statically-linked Guile, and (2) it has no dependencies. > > Thank you for the explanations. I am not sure to understand the > assumption (1) but never mind. Regarding (1): a statically-linked Guile cannot call =E2=80=98dynamic-link= =E2=80=99 to access libc symbols, so it cannot use FFI bindings to libc such as those in (guix build syscalls). HTH! Ludo=E2=80=99.