From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Hinsen Subject: bug#39079: SBCL CFFI from Guix unable to find dynamic libraries Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 11:11:39 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87v9pfm2fq.fsf@gmail.com> <87o8v7yp23.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <874kwyz8b3.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38640) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1irJB9-00049X-Lj for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 05:12:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1irJB7-0002Ci-OB for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 05:12:07 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:54706) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1irJB4-0002Al-82 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 05:12:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1irJB4-0002vo-2X for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 05:12:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <874kwyz8b3.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> 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-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Pierre Neidhardt , Evan Straw Cc: 39079@debbugs.gnu.org Pierre Neidhardt writes: > Konrad Hinsen writes: > >> Note that this is a feature, not a bug, so if that's the cause of the >> problem, there is nothing to do about it. You'd have to compile sbcl >> with the toolchain of the foreign distro. > > You don't have to use another SBCL. If you look at how we package > cffi-based libraries (e.g. sbcl-cl-sqlite), you'll see that we set the > path to the .so manually to the store location. This should not raise > any issue. Not with shared libraries in Guix, I agree. But the problem was with shared libraries from the foreign distros. Guix actually tries hard *not* to make them accessible (in order to ensure reproducibility), so I wonder if this bug should be closed as "not a bug". Cheers, Konrad.