[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on ar
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf. |
Date: |
Wed, 04 Jul 2018 09:27:47 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
> Marius Bakke <address@hidden> writes:
[...]
>> I'm sorry, I forgot to address your actual concerns. The (buggy)
>> workaround was put in place and discussed in
>> <https://bugs.gnu.org/30761>. The meat of it can be found in (guix
>> build-system meson):
>>
>> ;; XXX PatchELF fails to build on armhf, so we skip
>> ;; the 'fix-runpath' phase there for now. It is used
>> ;; to avoid superfluous entries in RUNPATH as described
>> ;; in <https://bugs.gnu.org/28444#46>, so armhf may now
>> ;; have different runtime dependencies from other arches.
>
> Thanks for this, but I'd still like to know the answer to my questions:
> "What does the [fix-runpath] phase accomplish, and how will armhf users
> be disadvantaged by the removal of that phase?"
As discussed in <https://bugs.gnu.org/31970> and
<https://bugs.gnu.org/31974>, Meson does not (or did not) adjust
RUNPATHs upon installation (contrary to what Libtool does, for
instance.)
Consequently, the RUNPATH is left with /tmp/guix-build-… entries, which
is not great but okay, but more importantly if usually lacks OUTPUT/lib
as well.
However, the commit Marius referred to¹ as well as what you reported for
Epiphany in #31974 suggest that things are improving in Meson proper,
and that we might be able to remove that ‘fix-runpath’ phase altogether
soon.
I think we should simply try building things without ‘fix-runpath’ and
see if ‘validate-runpath’ reports anything.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
¹
https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/commit/e3757e3d3cf24327c89dd3fc40f6cc933510f676
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), (continued)
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ricardo Wurmus, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Andreas Enge, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/05
- Re: RFC: Portability should be a higher priority for Guix (was Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf.), Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/05
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Marius Bakke, 2018/07/02
Re: 01/01: build-system/meson: Really skip the 'fix-runpath' phase on armhf., Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/03