May 5, 2023 11:02 AM, "Christopher Baines" <m...@cbaines.net> wrote:
> Josselin Poiret <d...@jpoiret.xyz> writes: > >> Christopher Baines <m...@cbaines.net> writes: >>> I think the use of coreutils-boot0 in the source for gcc-boot0 is a >>> problematic change introduced in core-updates [2], at least >>> coreutils-boot0 fails to build. >> >> Just to recap, as you mentioned on IRC, the coreutils configure phase >> seems to miss hurd.h, even though it is included in the bootstrap glibc. >> It might be due to the coreutils upgrade, since I don't see what else >> could've changed this derivation. I don't have a childhurd at the >> moment (because a cross-compiled Hurd fails to run), so I can't really >> test native compilation as above :( > > I think the first bit to look at here is not that coreutils-boot0 is > failing, but why it's started being used, because I'm not even sure > about that. Fun fact of the day, the Debian GNU/Hurd is starting to build 64-bit packages: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-hurd/2023-05/msg00073.html
