From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Wingo Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Simplify LLVM build. Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:56:00 +0200 Message-ID: <87a8tqnhn3.fsf@igalia.com> References: <87r3n2o2ed.fsf@igalia.com> <20150817034338.5918ffdd@openmailbox.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37880) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRKtW-0003nD-93 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:56:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRKtR-0005O4-G6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:56:10 -0400 Received: from pb-sasl1.int.icgroup.com ([208.72.237.25]:50595 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZRKtR-0005NA-9n for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2015 09:56:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150817034338.5918ffdd@openmailbox.org> (Eric Bavier's message of "Mon, 17 Aug 2015 03:43:38 -0500") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Eric Bavier Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Mon 17 Aug 2015 10:43, Eric Bavier writes: > Hello Andy, > > Thanks for taking a closer look at this! > > On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:27:38 +0200 > Andy Wingo wrote: > >> From db066d194d3b8359eddd0149234bfad29c11542d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Andy Wingo >> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:26:07 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Simplify LLVM build. >> >> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm): Simplify build. > > Could this perhaps be a bit more descriptive? It also doesn't > follow our standard. Maybe: > > gnu: llvm: Simplify build rpath handling. > > * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm)[arguments]: Remove phases argument. > Add to configure-flags "-DCMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_RPATH=FALSE" and > "-DCMAKE_BUILD_WITH_INSTALL_RPATH=FALSE". > > `~Eric It could :) However I do not see how the change you mention would be indicated by the GCS, HACKING, or guix.texi. As per the GCS I think this falls under "simple changes". If Guix has additional requirements they should be indicated somewhere; did I miss the document? Cheers, Andy