From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Cross-compilation broken on canonical packages.
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:04:36 +0100
Message-ID: <878sl943uz.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <878snff7pv.fsf@gmail.com> <877e2zf7kv.fsf@gmail.com>
 <871rt0ntvy.fsf@gnu.org> <87fthc9vav.fsf@gmail.com>
 <87y2ut645u.fsf@gnu.org> <87tv5gbz0o.fsf@gmail.com>
 <87blrlu3zv.fsf@gnu.org> <877e29v7qu.fsf@gmail.com>
 <87tv5cwxv1.fsf@gmail.com> <87pnelmg5e.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46545)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1j1W9Y-0007So-Bc
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 09:04:44 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87pnelmg5e.fsf@gmail.com> (Mathieu Othacehe's message of "Tue,
 11 Feb 2020 14:01:49 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
 <guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel"
 <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
To: Mathieu Othacehe <m.othacehe@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Hi,

Mathieu Othacehe <m.othacehe@gmail.com> skribis:

>>> But I'd like to avoid that. I'll see if I can figure out something
>>> better after a good night.
>>
>> Couldn't find much better, here's a patch, tell my what you think!
>
> I pushed a patch removing all canonical-packages calls, except the one
> for the default-locales-libcs variable.
>
> About this variable, I don't know if the dirty patch I proposed is
> better than accepting that the glibc used for locales is different from
> the one programs are linked against. WDYT?

On second thought, I think removing =E2=80=98canonical-package=E2=80=99 cal=
ls from (gnu
system locale) should work.  What matters there is that we build locales
with the matching libc (same version, not necessarily same store item.)

The only downside will be potentially an extra glibc download/build to
build the locale set, but that=E2=80=99s probably OK.

WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.