From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57205) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hoQMu-0006Xu-8a for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:44:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hoQMt-000500-8F for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:44:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:46374) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hoQMt-0004zr-4o for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:44:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hoQMt-0008Ux-1g for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2019 06:44:03 -0400 Subject: [bug#36695] [PATCH 3/3] guix: ant-build-system: Use absolute path as base-dir. Resent-Message-ID: References: <20190716201020.3303-1-h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> <20190716201020.3303-3-h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> <01413BEF-14AB-466F-8329-D81C0BB592FA@lepiller.eu> From: Hartmut Goebel Message-ID: <560f89f5-c186-9a93-ac3a-b5ca92f5842e@crazy-compilers.com> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 12:43:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <01413BEF-14AB-466F-8329-D81C0BB592FA@lepiller.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en-US List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Julien Lepiller , 36695@debbugs.gnu.org Am 17.07.19 um 10:17 schrieb Julien Lepiller: > I don't understand the point of that patch. I can already add a chdir p= hase just after unpack to do just that. What does this patch give us? This patch only ensures the build-directory is an absolute path instead of a relative one. It does not enable to specify the build-dir as an option to the ant-build-system. Thus it is different from using a chdir phase. As this patch is some years old now, I can't remember the exact case. AFAIR the relative path did not work for some packages for some reason. Please let me know if I should include this one, too. (No reasoning necessary.) (I'm just waiting for your answer to avoid rebuilding all java-packages twice - even on staging) --=20 Regards Hartmut Goebel | Hartmut Goebel | h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com | | www.crazy-compilers.com | compilers which you thought are impossible |