Hi, There's a problem with the following commit:
> commit 7eaa2f24ea77cddbb4bbc2d6a6905673a36f8f99 > Author: John Doe <dftxb...@free.fr> > Date: Tue Dec 15 10:23:44 2020 +0100 > > gnu: libffi: Add unreleased patch to fix float128 on powerpc64le. > > Fixes <https://bugs.gnu.org/45252>. > > * gnu/packages/patches/libffi-float128-powerpc64le.patch: Import patch file > from <https://github.com/libffi/libffi/pull/561.patch>. > * gnu/packages/libffi.scm (libffi)[arguments]: Apply patch conditionally for > powerpc64le-* systems in a phase. > [inputs]: Add patch as input conditionally for powerpc64le-* systems. > * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add patch file to build system. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> The problem is in how the 'patch' program is invoked, here: > diff --git a/gnu/packages/libffi.scm b/gnu/packages/libffi.scm > index d324892330..66239e0363 100644 > --- a/gnu/packages/libffi.scm > +++ b/gnu/packages/libffi.scm [...] > @@ -67,13 +68,28 @@ > "powerpc-patch"))) > (invoke "patch" "--batch" "-p1" > "-i" patch)))))) > + '()) > + ,@(if (string-prefix? "powerpc64le-" (or (%current-target-system) > + (%current-system))) > + '(#:phases (modify-phases %standard-phases > + (add-after 'unpack 'apply-patch2 > + (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys) > + (let ((patch (assoc-ref inputs > + "powerpc64le-patch"))) > + (invoke "patch" "--batch" "-p1" > + "-i" patch)))))) > '()))) When invoking 'patch' in Guix, you should *always* use "--force" instead of "--batch". There's a crucial difference between these two options: If 'patch' finds that the given patch has already been applied, then "--batch" will automatically *revert* the patch, whereas "--force" will raise an error. Here's the relevant section of the 'diffutils' manual: > 10.11.2 Inhibiting Keyboard Input > --------------------------------- > > There are two ways you can prevent 'patch' from asking you any > questions. The '--force' ('-f') option assumes that you know what you > are doing. It causes 'patch' to do the following: > > * Skip patches that do not contain file names in their headers. > > * Patch files even though they have the wrong version for the > 'Prereq:' line in the patch; > > * Assume that patches are not reversed even if they look like they > are. > > The '--batch' ('-t') option is similar to '-f', in that it suppresses > questions, but it makes somewhat different assumptions: > > * Skip patches that do not contain file names in their headers (the > same as '-f'). > > * Skip patches for which the file has the wrong version for the > 'Prereq:' line in the patch; > > * Assume that patches are reversed if they look like they are. Now consider what will happen when we upgrade 'libffi' to a newer version that already includes this fix. If the Guix developer who performs the upgrade forgets to remove this patch, the 'patch' invocation above will start silently re-inserting the old bug. We ran into this exact problem in the early years of Guix, and henceforth changed all of the invocations of 'patch' to use '--force'. Can we fix this right away, before many powerpc64le-* binaries are built on top of it? In any case, thanks very much for working on the powerpc64le port! Regards, Mark
