Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

2014-12-31 Thread Mark H Weaver
Hello Guix, I've pushed a new branch 'wip-armhf' (not to be confused with 'wip-arm') which seems likely to finish natively building bootstrap tarballs soon. It is based on the 'core-updates' branch. I chose system name "armhf-linux", GNU triplet "arm-linux-gnueabihf", and the following GCC config

Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

2014-12-31 Thread John Darrington
It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and the wip-armhf branches is the value of the --with-fpu flag. I'm not an ARM expert, so I don't know how important that setting is. But I do know that there are many different fpus - if we are going to have a new branch for eve

Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

2014-12-31 Thread Mark H Weaver
Hi John, John Darrington writes: > It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and > the wip-armhf branches is the value of the --with-fpu flag. That is not even close to the truth, as anyone who actually looks at the branches (or tries to build them) can easily see. John,

Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

2014-12-31 Thread John Darrington
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: John Darrington writes: > It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and > the wip-armhf branches is the value of the --with-fpu flag. That is not even close to the truth, as anyone

guix pull fails for me

2014-12-31 Thread Adam Pribyl
ATM on guix 0.8 installation from USB invoking guix pull fails. Am I too far from the master or something? compiling '/gnu/store/1w0y78nvmivv6a688ljcdnl35dy8m8i7-guix-latest/guix/import/pypi.scm'... ERROR: no code for module (json) Backtrace: In ice-9/boot-9.scm: 157: 12 [catch #t # ...] In u

Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

2014-12-31 Thread Mark H Weaver
Mark H Weaver writes: > I've pushed a new branch 'wip-armhf' (not to be confused with 'wip-arm') > which seems likely to finish natively building bootstrap tarballs soon. > It is based on the 'core-updates' branch. I believe that my cross-compiled bootstrap tarballs are bad and have to be rebuil

Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

2014-12-31 Thread Mark H Weaver
Mark H Weaver writes: > Mark H Weaver writes: > >> I've pushed a new branch 'wip-armhf' (not to be confused with 'wip-arm') >> which seems likely to finish natively building bootstrap tarballs soon. >> It is based on the 'core-updates' branch. > > I believe that my cross-compiled bootstrap tarba

Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

2014-12-31 Thread Mark H Weaver
Hi John, John Darrington writes: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: > > John Darrington writes: > > It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and > > the wip-armhf branches is the value of the --with-fpu flag. > >

[PATCH 1/2] gnu: perl-xml-simple: Propagate XML::Parser.

2014-12-31 Thread 宋文武
* gnu/packages/xml.scm (perl-xml-simple): Move XML::Parser from 'inputs' to 'propagated-inputs'. --- gnu/packages/xml.scm | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gnu/packages/xml.scm b/gnu/packages/xml.scm index 63d0ef2..76366db 100644 --- a/gnu/packages/xml.scm +++ b

[PATCH 2/2] gnu: icon-naming-utils: Wrap with PERL5LIB to find XML::Simple.

2014-12-31 Thread 宋文武
Fixes . * gnu/packages/gnome.scm (icon-naming-utils)[arguments]: New field. --- gnu/packages/gnome.scm | 12 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+) diff --git a/gnu/packages/gnome.scm b/gnu/packages/gnome.scm index 1ff9e85..a2ef712 100644 --- a/gnu/packages/gnom

Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

2014-12-31 Thread John Darrington
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 06:40:23PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: * You added "CFLAGS=-Wno-cast-qual" and "--disable-werror" for ARM in 'gcc-configure-flags-for-triplet', which I thought was a bad idea and didn't belong there. Have you tried actually building GCC ? I found t

Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

2014-12-31 Thread Mark H Weaver
John Darrington writes: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 06:40:23PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: > > * You added "CFLAGS=-Wno-cast-qual" and "--disable-werror" for ARM in >'gcc-configure-flags-for-triplet', which I thought was a bad idea and >didn't belong there. > > Have you t

Re: Preliminary 'wip-armhf' branch pushed

2014-12-31 Thread John Darrington
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 02:11:19AM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: John Darrington writes: > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 06:40:23PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: > > * You added "CFLAGS=-Wno-cast-qual" and "--disable-werror" for ARM in >'gcc-configure-flags