On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 01:38:58PM +0200, Björn Höfling wrote: > What I find strange is that the derivation of gst-plugins-base differs > from the one above when directly building gst-plugins-base. That would > make sense to me if there would be two packages of gst-plugins-base, > like an inherited one or just any kind of copy. But here, the package > definition of wine ist just using the "normal" package. Or have I > overlooked something? Have I misunderstood something about derivations > here?!
Presumably, you are using an x86_64 computer, and the successful build
of gst-plugins-base is for an x86_64-linux system. However, the wine
package and its dependency graph is always built as 32-bit software,
regardless of the underlying architecture:
From gnu/packages/wine.scm:
------
(arguments
`(;; Force a 32-bit build targeting a similar architecture, i.e.:
;; armhf for armhf/aarch64, i686 for i686/x86_64.
#:system ,@(match (%current-system)
((or "armhf-linux" "aarch64-linux")
`("armhf-linux"))
(_
`("i686-linux")))
------
And the test failure in the 32-bit build of gst-plugins base was
previously discussed on help-guix (no bug report):
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2018-06/msg00075.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
