From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nikita Karetnikov Subject: Re: Porting to mips64el Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:08:42 -0500 Message-ID: <87d2xc4azh.fsf@karetnikov.org> References: <8738yvnslh.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87y5gfa7t9.fsf@gnu.org> <87vcbjldp5.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87zk0v4e29.fsf@gnu.org> <87wqvzclyj.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87ehi71bl6.fsf@gnu.org> <87pq1rma9g.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87wqvyxvhv.fsf@gnu.org> <87lic3vm8s.fsf@karetnikov.org> <871udv6bny.fsf@gnu.org> <87d2xfk9qb.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87k3rnr61e.fsf@gnu.org> <871udvwna6.fsf@karetnikov.org> <876237bdqu.fsf@gnu.org> <87y5g2uzbj.fsf@karetnikov.org> <87y5g2kp8s.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45033) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TtVv8-00051i-8Z for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:08:47 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TtVv4-00024b-Gk for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:08:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87y5g2kp8s.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "(unknown date)") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I think Llu=C3=ADs said that something must be added to ~/.nixpkgs/config= .nix > to make sure the right platform setup is used, but again, I have no > expertise in MIPS64 so I can=E2=80=99t really help. Thanks, I forgot about 'config.nix'. Unfortunately, it didn't help. (The hashes are different, but the errors are the same.) > Yes, I think you reported it earlier. This could be either a sign of > not enough memory, or perhaps that the consequence of trying to run an > invalid binary (such as a corrupt ELF executable.) How can I test the latter? Will it help if I build something without Nixpkgs? (What should I build?) Nikita --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ75BoAAoJEM+IQzI9IQ38auwP/RAiyv2WeKG4vTEfVqI0jdCk KcodemAI0EzqFgbwMK2rtJnFLkbYicCE0dt3KVWLK+jdxmoX7fGMmoOP9yk1qCu0 mQm/fk0XmXUtUF652Gc++6Q5avi+YOWjIcArlCYWfXDFIqinFQJyhgIbys6tb8z5 71oWr0RiR1YxOjxnXUhTLbp40cPHB07SuDiaFtw5S1skZ3fPimftg3V+qBTNqHkw fSmywCEgy1s6Lld3aKhlnABKL9ZjgApaTjdQNHI+BkiG4jacB1BXJwh1IPlRMZ9b SgG6JmPoLzVD84nInhvChRpkJ72UQpk/vI2qgw7WxbBMMhiJllrB60b7nv4Lzfnt iHvv/lM6tJiR4Ro9WA9fX0bZLBJop7fx+Ufb3yPtlxgckPd7+0D9oH0vjY+2lAaz MHdaHHaqM0U8xHeVkSuplnvejZkQxdLAqfbEkWBQgtZhxn5aEgnjc9orR2nCiT7d gaCKR7sJluuTeDPAhU12KCUeSADR/YFXsOi+Z3d5NkeKRlhRKjsqsKpNIZ0lDNHO Fa6qpaNmiTzbaUW0Mx7/KAqp+hpLecKl0JPH8P8blzEXGJDrGUiOoMA8ISx8K62S w8nwnVzjdBs/kXFMaA2JTkw1TaHDCkkVdLysSAJn083j0fXGwx59e4DjUMxSK8fM 1bsKkjpWQRYW3jPyhbC3 =sFTZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--