Re: Running guix-daemon as an unprivileged user (Was: [PATCH] syscalls: setns: Skip binding if there is no such C function.)

[韋嘉誠]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Eric Bavier
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On 2015-08-17 15:46, Claes Wallin wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:33 AM, Eric Bavier
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> I have experimented with this a bit lately.  It works to some extent,
>>> but I have had to apply a few patches to some package recipes.  Some
>>> packages have failing tests (where presumably they would pass or be
>>> skipped in the chroot), which I have disabled for the time being just
>>> to move along.
>>>
>>> I can post a few of the patches to the ML later.
>>
>>
>>
>> Any patches related to bootstrapping gcc? I'm getting lib/lib64 confusion.
>
>
> Yes, that's been one issue.
>
> Attached are the patches I have so far.  Hopefully they can get you a bit
> further.  I've been able to build a number of packages, but thare are still
> some package builds failing, e.g. IIRC one of cmake's dependencies doesn't
> build.

I saw more packages failing down the line due to ../lib64, e.g.
procps, bison ... so I ended up patching gcc not to do ../lib64. Looks
neater than adding defensive -L all over the place.


How come this doesn't happen in the binary guix? Is this configuration
a thing that is perpetuated from the system to gcc, and just nobody
has been building the binary guix from scratch in a long time?

Maybe each guix release should be built from scratch (if it isn't
now), to make sure things like this don't live on unnoticed.


> Some of these patches may be alright in general, but turning test cases off
> is of course not an ideal solution.


Still compiling libcs, gettexts and gccs now. Again. I'll see if I get
far enough today to run into those issues. But I think once I get past
glibc and gcc, I ought to be on par with binary guix. Right?