Hi Mark,

Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis:

> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> The bug stems from ‘ld-wrapper-boot0’ and was introduced in
>> d75acc293dd3e63db8739aa04c021df917aa1b80.  The problem is that
>> ‘ld-wrapper-boot0’ uses the value of (%current-system) on the machine
>> that builds the derivation i.e., hydra.gnu.org.
>> 
>> Instead, it should use the value of the system we’re building for, so
>> its evaluation should be delayed, as is the case for ‘inputs’ fields.
>> 
>> The result of this bug is that ‘ld-wrapper-boot0’ is bogus on all arches
>> except x86_64.  However, this is harmless: we don’t need this ld wrapper
>> anyway, except for GNU/Hurd.
>> 
>> So, a short-term hack might be this:
>> 
>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/commencement.scm b/gnu/packages/commencement.scm
>> index 53ba718..0a8e608 100644
>> --- a/gnu/packages/commencement.scm
>> +++ b/gnu/packages/commencement.scm
>> @@ -424,8 +424,8 @@ the bootstrap environment."
>>  (define ld-wrapper-boot0
>>    ;; We need this so binaries on Hurd will have libmachuser and libhurduser
>>    ;; in their RUNPATH, otherwise validate-runpath will fail.
>> -  (make-ld-wrapper (string-append "ld-wrapper-" (boot-triplet))
>> -                   #:target (boot-triplet)
>> +  (make-ld-wrapper (string-append "ld-wrapper-" "x86_64-guix-linux-gnu")
>> +                   #:target "x86_64-guix-linux-gnu"
>>                     #:binutils binutils-boot0
>>                     #:guile %bootstrap-guile
>>                     #:bash (car (assoc-ref %boot0-inputs "bash"))))
>> 
>> That way, we would not have to rebuild anything (it temporarily breaks
>> GNU/Hurd though, but that’s the cost we’d have to pay.)
>> 
>> How does that sound?
>
> Ah, nice!  Could be avoid breaking GNU/Hurd by delaying evaluation of
> ‘ld-wrapper-boot0’ right now, but temporarily rigging it so that on all
> _non-Hurd_ platforms, the hard-coded value "x86_64-guix-linux-gnu" is
> used?

Good idea.  I committed something along these lines as
5bde4503eeaa1d772744abcf87afc29eb0e9329d.

We’ll have to remove the workaround on the next cycle.

Thanks,
Ludo’.



Reply via email to