Hi, Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> skribis:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 02:11:11PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 10:29:49AM +0100, Mathieu Othacehe wrote: >> > If we want to disable SBCL builds temporarily we can do something >> > similar to what I did to disable Rust builds on non-x86_64 architectures >> > here: 0ed631866cc0b7cece2b0a0b50e39b37ae91bb67. >> >> ------ >> diff --git a/gnu/packages/rust.scm b/gnu/packages/rust.scm >> index 35a96b5754..91b5d6b6ec 100644 >> --- a/gnu/packages/rust.scm >> +++ b/gnu/packages/rust.scm >> @@ -452,6 +452,7 @@ test = { path = \"../libtest\" } >> (variable "LIBRARY_PATH") >> (files '("lib" "lib64"))))) >> >> + (supported-systems '("x86_64-linux")) >> (synopsis "Compiler for the Rust programming language") >> (description "Rust is a systems programming language that provides >> memory >> safety and thread safety guarantees.") >> ------ >> >> Hm, this would also prevent users from building the packages on their >> own machines. We need a way to make changes like this but limit them to >> the build farm. > > Would marking it unsubstitutable work? Or would we need build-local If you mark it as #:substitutable? #f, then CI won’t try to build it but users can still build it. Now, I think we should avoid papering over CI configuration issues (did I get that right?) by changing package definitions. HTH! Ludo’.