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 configure
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
Hi John,
John Darrington j...@darrington.wattle.id.au 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
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
John Darrington j...@darrington.wattle.id.au 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
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
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org 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
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org 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
Hi John,
John Darrington j...@darrington.wattle.id.au writes:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
John Darrington j...@darrington.wattle.id.au writes:
It would seem then, that the only difference between the wip-arm and
the wip-armhf
* 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
+++
Fixes http://bugs.gnu.org/19367.
* 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
---
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 that
John Darrington j...@darrington.wattle.id.au 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
On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 02:11:19AM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote:
John Darrington j...@darrington.wattle.id.au 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
13 matches
Mail list logo
