From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: GSoC: Porting Guix to Hurd week 2 report Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 21:11:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87r3qgqqv9.fsf@gnu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Manolis Ragkousis's message of "Fri, 15 May 2015 22:17:14 +0300") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-hurd-bounces+gnu-bug-hurd=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-hurd-bounces+gnu-bug-hurd=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Manolis Ragkousis Cc: Guix-devel , bug-hurd@gnu.org, Samuel Thibault List-Id: guix-devel.gnu.org Hello, Thanks for the update, it all seems to be on track! Hopefully the availability of the glibc-hurd tarball allow the code to be simplified, and the Hurd-specific parts of the glibc recipes to be reduced. > I was thinking about following Mark's suggestion of having a generic > glibc package with all the common > configure flags and inputs, and the two others inheriting from it, > defining the specific sources and > inputs/flags. WDYT? In an ideal world, the only differences between the two libcs would be the source (and version) and the inputs. How far are we from that now? If we can achieve that, we=E2=80=99ll be able to keep a single glibc recipe= . If there are other differences, we=E2=80=99ll see. > Ludovic I don't have anything to report on the binaries actually > running on hurd right now, > because I am hoping to test that with the actual bootstrap tarballs. No problem! Cheers, Ludo=E2=80=99.