From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kei Kebreau Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add fpc. (version 2) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:54:27 -0400 Message-ID: <87tw6n4l0c.fsf@openmailbox.org> References: <87poj9xwzp.fsf@openmailbox.org> <87lgtxxial.fsf@openmailbox.org> <87efzpxfxh.fsf@openmailbox.org> <87a8adxct0.fsf@openmailbox.org> <20170314224527.7bee1241@scratchpost.org> <87mvcfg1nv.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37116) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cq6CU-0007M5-BI for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:54:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cq6CQ-0000rC-C9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:54:54 -0400 Received: from lb1.openmailbox.org ([5.79.108.160]:39919 helo=mail.openmailbox.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cq6CQ-0000qq-2S for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:54:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87mvcfg1nv.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Mon, 20 Mar 2017 20:59:16 +0100") 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" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Danny Milosavljevic writes: > >> Hi, >> >>>+ (copy-file (assoc-ref inputs "fpc-binary") >>>+ "fpc-bin.tar") >>>+ (zero? (system* "tar" "xvf" "fpc-bin.tar"))))) >> >> Why the copy-file and then untar ? Can't it be untarred immediately from= where it is? If it is useful, maybe add a comment about the reason. >> >> Also, it might be easier to have a fpc-bootstrap package with the >> bootstrap binaries that installs the binaries required to build fpc >> normally and to make a fpc package depend on fpc-bootstrap as >> native-inputs. What do you think? I myself don't have a strong >> preference about it - but some other packages do it that way. > > It=E2=80=99s not so nice to depend on a binary bootstrap. Can this be av= oided? > I tried packaging a version of the GNU Pascal compiler, which is > unmaintained, in an effort to bootstrap a version of FPC from source. > > Have you attempted this? > Though I would prefer a source bootstrap, I haven't attempted this. I anticipate that it would be no small feat getting the GNU Pascal compiler to work. Were you using a recent version of GCC to try to bootstrap FPC? > -- > Ricardo > > GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC > https://elephly.net --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEg7ZwOtzKO2lLzi2m5qXuPBlGeg0FAljQXaMACgkQ5qXuPBlG eg2hGxAAvcuVOMZUIPAp+TafJPKEgoxX34W3L17/NrIqoPotxZzn8BmkzfhrExFz atvcc1Gf0TcU29GfE+ff2HeRk+30Ln7b39JEOOQ58uFc9O+8TNMhl2EcUORBHFXI lcjIcGF69Y3c/p+6dAow2D56FIxvLS8449FGbWWrO0uleoPUwH2bQqivCRktZRTx eIslT+fqXxOw6fSBIVk6hUT4kwFSrfywe1InKJlhxG9A8vurgVPfi0T0hS3PTGTW wEb/bDnMg4QlgwDfZmZiV5tGHVFMZH9vydGYAms/GYeS9rKF6JfbPH3SJwnM1wse JWpvmgxvAcpZIaqq3KOvuk1vUwCuR+lwFeUFfZIGxm23GDpIqUHfZE+Qa4LaEjLN ZKvRs04EjA0Cx7xRFHKvmo2Y+YvOE7Rt7EFto5Pn6gbiQlJBpJlt/8t0Ps75Aw15 yx9Eih4FjRn3RCo/AVpwrVsQM+MK/Ed5UW0Jr3uPglYtNY67qPnaEebLsL5S0lQA exew2tRoO38FbSZovQ423j6eCwz1bIVszxJ+gnGR6OMStKmDQcIL/cNuNx386nm6 1mD3Msw9Tk7NaaMfOkV2bAEwXzzSMQL0QErzQL2ptyoKzq1FlLZROp8UmA3JpjNS +ZehTVvYClTf8r2mzb+a/fJ/x14utySdVjtBjq1mQc1GUgLGaLg= =p9XT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--