This patch adds GNU Fdisk 2.0.0a.
Is it necessary to package the latest version too? (The latest version
depends on this one [1].)
I'm not sure about the license. 'COPYING' is GPLv3, but sources use
GPLv2+.
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-fdisk/2012-09/msg0.html
From 89f13d2ee5
> This is a known issue: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/33397 . The
> attached files make w3m buildable.
Thanks.
Can I push the attached patches?
From a64f68c566760503ad46660e9a5e3de7b3a61c7a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nikita Karetnikov
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 01:08:24 +
Subject: [PATCH]
> Congratulations! I tried the build and it worked without problem.
How can I try it?
I set the LIBRARY_PATH variable:
export
LIBRARY_PATH=/nix/store/mifp2p1zjlvb4ndslw1r8grkpglybqjf-glibc-cross-mips64el-linux-gnu-2.17/lib
and tried to compile a test file 'foo.c':
int main() {return 0;}
Howe
Hello,
Commit 08fd1eb adds ‘perl-build-system’, which allows packages using the
‘perl Makefile.PL’ method to be trivially defined (not that I was eager
to do more Perl, but it turns out to be useful ;-)).
This gives a simple example of a build system built on top of
‘gnu-build-system’.
Comments
>> +(copy-file prog prog-real)
> You lack a (chmod prog-real #o755), I think.
Are you sure?
If 'prog' is an executable, 'prog-real' will be an executable too.
scheme@(guile-user)> (open-file "foo" "w")
$1 = #
scheme@(guile-user)> (chmod "foo" #o755)
scheme@(guile-user)> (copy-file "foo" "ba
On 02/13/2013 07:57 AM, Nikita Karetnikov wrote:
Just replace "struct file_handle" with "struct io_file_handle"
everywhere in the w3m source code. That will have no effect on the
operation of the program whatsoever.
I used the following:
(arguments `(#:tests? #f ; no 'check' target
Andreas Enge skribis:
> The check phase of perl is disabled in the distribution, but no comment is
> given. What was the reason? Is it still valid?
Oops, my bad. I can’t remember the reason.
I just tried, and got this:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
Failed
Andreas Enge skribis:
> I think one needs to add the configure parameters "--with-arch=mips64 --
> with-abi=64" to the cross build of gcc; and maybe "-march=mip64 -mabi=64"
> to the binutils and glibc. Ludovic should know best where to do it in the
> code.
I would add a keyword parameter to ‘c
Nikita Karetnikov skribis:
>> I wouldn’t bother, though, because it will be used in contexts where
>> there’s no risk of ‘prog’ being used while we’re fiddling with it
>> (single-threaded, after ‘make install’).
>
> Better safe than sorry. So I added '.PROG-tmp'.
Good. :-)
> +(copy-file p
Nikita Karetnikov skribis:
>> I’m making progress, but it may still be a week before it’s all in
>> place.
>
> I'm willing to try this [1]. What should I adjust to build with n64?
> (My previous attempt: [2].)
>
> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/2013-02/msg00290.html
> [2] https:
Andreas Enge skribis:
> This is because it is not contained in a subdirectory lib/pkgconfig, but in
> share/pkgconfig. Should we add "share/pkgconfig" to the lines
> (set-path-environment-variable "PKG_CONFIG_PATH"
> '("lib/pkgconfig" "lib64/pkgconfig")
> in gu
Hi!
Andreas Enge skribis:
> the lsof tarball contains the source in a two-stage process: After
> unpacking, one is left with lsof_4.87_src.tar, which needs to be unpacked
> as well.
Weird.
> I tried the following:
>
>(arguments
> `(#:phases
> (alist-replace
>'unpack
>
Concerning x.org, I am making some progress: The files missing on ftp are
actually available on the http servers, as found out through #xorg-devel.
Now I am trying to compile a few packages and need to add some
dependencies. The following happens for xlsatoms during the configure
phase:
Packag
Am Mittwoch, 27. Februar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> Commit 827d289 of the ‘core-updates’ branch adds cross-base.scm, which
> builds a cross tool chain.
>
> So if you type ‘guix build gcc-cross-mips64el-linux-gnu’, you get a
> cross-compiler (+ libc, binutils) for that platform. The compiler
> I’m making progress, but it may still be a week before it’s all in
> place.
I'm willing to try this [1]. What should I adjust to build with n64?
(My previous attempt: [2].)
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/2013-02/msg00290.html
[2] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/201
> I wouldn’t bother, though, because it will be used in contexts where
> there’s no risk of ‘prog’ being used while we’re fiddling with it
> (single-threaded, after ‘make install’).
Better safe than sorry. So I added '.PROG-tmp'.
> Can you just expound the docstring before pushing?
Is it OK? C
The check phase of perl is disabled in the distribution, but no comment is
given. What was the reason? Is it still valid?
Andreas
Hello,
the lsof tarball contains the source in a two-stage process: After
unpacking, one is left with lsof_4.87_src.tar, which needs to be unpacked
as well. I tried the following:
(arguments
`(#:phases
(alist-replace
'unpack
(lambda* (#:key source name version #:allow
18 matches
Mail list logo
