On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Eric Bavier <ericbav...@openmailbox.org> wrote: > On 2015-08-17 15:46, Claes Wallin wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Eric Bavier >> <ericbav...@openmailbox.org> wrote: >> >>> I have experimented with this a bit lately. It works to some extent, >>> but I have had to apply a few patches to some package recipes. Some >>> packages have failing tests (where presumably they would pass or be >>> skipped in the chroot), which I have disabled for the time being just >>> to move along. >>> >>> I can post a few of the patches to the ML later. >> >> >> >> Any patches related to bootstrapping gcc? I'm getting lib/lib64 confusion. > > > Yes, that's been one issue. > > Attached are the patches I have so far. Hopefully they can get you a bit > further. I've been able to build a number of packages, but thare are still > some package builds failing, e.g. IIRC one of cmake's dependencies doesn't > build.
I saw more packages failing down the line due to ../lib64, e.g. procps, bison ... so I ended up patching gcc not to do ../lib64. Looks neater than adding defensive -L all over the place. How come this doesn't happen in the binary guix? Is this configuration a thing that is perpetuated from the system to gcc, and just nobody has been building the binary guix from scratch in a long time? Maybe each guix release should be built from scratch (if it isn't now), to make sure things like this don't live on unnoticed. > Some of these patches may be alright in general, but turning test cases off > is of course not an ideal solution. Still compiling libcs, gettexts and gccs now. Again. I'll see if I get far enough today to run into those issues. But I think once I get past glibc and gcc, I ought to be on par with binary guix. Right?
