Re: branch core-updates updated: gnu: coreutils-boot0: Fix building on arm architectures.

Re: branch core-updates updated: gnu: coreutils-boot0: Fix building on arm architectures.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

guix-commits@gnu.org skribis:

> commit 9782c4529249c8300501202112c095a6589845d3
> Author: Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>
> AuthorDate: Sun Dec 11 22:35:06 2022 +0200
> 
>     gnu: coreutils-boot0: Fix building on arm architectures.
>     
>     * gnu/packages/commencement.scm (coreutils-boot0)[arguments]: When
>     building for arm architectures skip building some programs.

[…]

> +       ,@(if (target-arm?)
> +           ;; Some binaries fail to build.
> +           `(#:configure-flags '(,(string-append
> +                                    "--enable-no-install-program="
> +                                    ;; the defaults
> +                                    "arch,coreutils,hostname"
> +                                    ;; fails on aarch64
> +                                    ",timeout,sort")))

Isn’t there a risk that things will break down the road if ‘sort’,
‘hostname’, etc. are missing?  How hard would it be to address the build
failure instead?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: branch core-updates updated: gnu: coreutils-boot0: Fix building on arm architectures.

[Efraim Flashner]

On December 12, 2022 1:47:29 PM UTC, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>guix-commits@gnu.org skribis:
>
>> commit 9782c4529249c8300501202112c095a6589845d3
>> Author: Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>
>> AuthorDate: Sun Dec 11 22:35:06 2022 +0200
>> 
>>     gnu: coreutils-boot0: Fix building on arm architectures.
>>     
>>     * gnu/packages/commencement.scm (coreutils-boot0)[arguments]: When
>>     building for arm architectures skip building some programs.
>
>[…]
>
>> +       ,@(if (target-arm?)
>> +           ;; Some binaries fail to build.
>> +           `(#:configure-flags '(,(string-append
>> +                                    "--enable-no-install-program="
>> +                                    ;; the defaults
>> +                                    "arch,coreutils,hostname"
>> +                                    ;; fails on aarch64
>> +                                    ",timeout,sort")))
>
>Isn’t there a risk that things will break down the road if ‘sort’,
>‘hostname’, etc. are missing?  How hard would it be to address the build
>failure instead?
>
>Thanks,
>Ludo’.

I built all the way out to hello without any problems. Also %final-inputs has coreutils-final, so it really shouldn't be noticable.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: branch core-updates updated: gnu: coreutils-boot0: Fix building on arm architectures.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> skribis:

> On December 12, 2022 1:47:29 PM UTC, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

[...]

>>> +       ,@(if (target-arm?)
>>> +           ;; Some binaries fail to build.
>>> +           `(#:configure-flags '(,(string-append
>>> +                                    "--enable-no-install-program="
>>> +                                    ;; the defaults
>>> +                                    "arch,coreutils,hostname"
>>> +                                    ;; fails on aarch64
>>> +                                    ",timeout,sort")))
>>
>>Isn’t there a risk that things will break down the road if ‘sort’,
>>‘hostname’, etc. are missing?  How hard would it be to address the build
>>failure instead?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Ludo’.
>
> I built all the way out to hello without any problems. Also %final-inputs has coreutils-final, so it really shouldn't be noticable.

That’s odd though.  Isn’t there some upstream patch we could take?
Surely ‘sort’ has no reason to contain arch-specific code?

If there’s no such patch, we can go with the patch above, but then there
should be a comment linking to bug reports and reassuring the reader
that yes, some packages do build even without these commands.  :-)

(There’s no “coreutils” command BTW, unless enabling the
everything-in-one-binary trick, no?)

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: branch core-updates updated: gnu: coreutils-boot0: Fix building on arm architectures.

[Efraim Flashner]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2635 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 03:56:24PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,

Sorry for taking a while to get back to answer this.

> Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> skribis:
> 
> > On December 12, 2022 1:47:29 PM UTC, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >>> +       ,@(if (target-arm?)
> >>> +           ;; Some binaries fail to build.
> >>> +           `(#:configure-flags '(,(string-append
> >>> +                                    "--enable-no-install-program="
> >>> +                                    ;; the defaults
> >>> +                                    "arch,coreutils,hostname"
> >>> +                                    ;; fails on aarch64
> >>> +                                    ",timeout,sort")))
> >>
> >>Isn’t there a risk that things will break down the road if ‘sort’,
> >>‘hostname’, etc. are missing?  How hard would it be to address the build
> >>failure instead?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Ludo’.
> >
> > I built all the way out to hello without any problems. Also %final-inputs has coreutils-final, so it really shouldn't be noticable.
> 
> That’s odd though.  Isn’t there some upstream patch we could take?
> Surely ‘sort’ has no reason to contain arch-specific code?
> 
> If there’s no such patch, we can go with the patch above, but then there
> should be a comment linking to bug reports and reassuring the reader
> that yes, some packages do build even without these commands.  :-)

In file included from src/timeout.c:53:0:
/gnu/store/4fy2658sxphy1kgclxrrmcka6lwiwap0-glibc-bootstrap-0/include/sys/prctl.h:22:66: fatal error: linux/prctl.h: No such file or directory
 #include <linux/prctl.h>  /*  The magic values come from here  */

I'm not sure if it's because armhf and aarch64 are using
%bootstrap-glibc vs glibc-2.16, but I didn't see this problem with
glibc-mesboot or with the %bootstrap-glibc from architectures using
2.31.

Other workarounds I thought of were adding in a glibc-boot0 here to
replace libc for everybody or using an older version (the last one in
the 8 series), but this seemed like the least invasive option for now.

I've also added a comment so it'll be clearer what's happening there.

> (There’s no “coreutils” command BTW, unless enabling the
> everything-in-one-binary trick, no?)

It turns out coreutils does allow for that.

> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]