Hi Marius, Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> writes:
> Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> writes: > >> mba...@fastmail.com (Marius Bakke) writes: >> >>> mbakke pushed a commit to branch staging >>> in repository guix. >>> >>> commit cb4b508cd68df89bfbd5255a0c5569f8318ad50f >>> Author: Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> >>> Date: Mon Jul 2 12:07:58 2018 +0200 >>> >>> build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf. >>> >>> This follows up commit d5b5a15a4046362377f1a45d466b43bb6e93d4f which >>> doesn't >>> work because %current-system etc expands before the actual build. >> >> I'm disappointed by this workaround that simply removes the >> 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf. Is that phase needed, or is it truly >> optional? What does the phase accomplish, and how will armhf users be >> disadvantaged by the removal of that phase? > > I'm sorry, I forgot to address your actual concerns. The (buggy) > workaround was put in place and discussed in > <https://bugs.gnu.org/30761>. The meat of it can be found in (guix > build-system meson): > > ;; XXX PatchELF fails to build on armhf, so we skip > ;; the 'fix-runpath' phase there for now. It is used > ;; to avoid superfluous entries in RUNPATH as described > ;; in <https://bugs.gnu.org/28444#46>, so armhf may now > ;; have different runtime dependencies from other arches. Thanks for this, but I'd still like to know the answer to my questions: "What does the [fix-runpath] phase accomplish, and how will armhf users be disadvantaged by the removal of that phase?" If the 'fix-runpath' phase is not strictly needed, then I would prefer to remove it on _all_ systems. If it _is_ needed, then I don't see how we can simply remove it on 'armhf' systems. Thanks, Mark
