On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 12:03:39PM +0530, Arun Isaac wrote:
> 
> >> >             ,@(cond
> >> > +              ((target-riscv64?)
> >> > +               '((add-after 'unpack 'force-bootstrap
> >> > +                   (lambda _
> >> > +                     ;; gsl ships with an old configure script that does not
> >> > +                     ;; support riscv64. Regenerate it.
> >> > +                     (delete-file "configure")))))
> >> > +
> >> 
> >> WDYT of making this unconditional?  Two benefits:
> >> 
> >>   * if Guix is ported to another new architecture,
> >>     then no changes are necessary to the package definition.
> >> 
> >>   * 'configure' and 'Makefile.in' are not source code,
> >>     and more difficult to audit for things like malware than
> >>     'configure.ac' and 'Makefile.am'.
> >
> > This can be with a TODO for core-updates. gsl itself has about 2000
> > dependant packages.
> 
> I agree. That was my reasoning as well. If we agree that making it
> unconditional is the way forward, I can send another patch for
> core-updates after this patchset is pushed to master.
> 
> > That said, I'm not convinced about unilaterally removing configure
> > unless we make it a policy to remove it. Also, I haven't had trouble
> > with building gsl on riscv64-linux without this patch.
> 
> Without the force-boostrap phase, the configure phase fails during
> cross-compilation.
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
..snip..
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

I somehow missed that when I was testing it before. It builds fine
natively on riscv64-linux and I haven't tested cross-building from
riscv64-linux to another architecture. I think for now we can tag it as
(target-riscv64?) and (%current-target-system) so it only takes effect
when needed.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted