Hi,
Thank you for the follow up.
On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 at 12:22, Hendursaga via Bug reports for GNU Guix
wrote:
> The patch[1] has been closed for some time, is there any other pending
> patches blocking going forward?
>
> [1] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583
Indeed, but the package s
The patch[1] has been closed for some time, is there any other pending patches
blocking going forward?
[1] https://github.com/slime/slime/issues/583
zimoun skribis:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 14:41, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote:
>> zimoun skribis:
>>
>>> Using Guix 58af4c9, the package ’sbcl’ seems not-reproducible.
>
> [...]
>
>> Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify
>> things. Maybe nothing really de
Hi,
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 14:41, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote:
> zimoun skribis:
>
>> Using Guix 58af4c9, the package ’sbcl’ seems not-reproducible.
[...]
> Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify
> things. Maybe nothing really depends on it and it would be possi
Hi Guillaume,
Thank you for asking upstream.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 18:45, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote:
> A developer of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but
> currently Slime has a function depending on it. I asked if this could
> be fixed [2]. We'll see...
>
> [1] https:
zimoun skribis:
>> Removing this source file timestamp from compiled files would simplify
>> things. Maybe nothing really depends on it and it would be possible...
>
>Thanks for the explanation.
A developer of SBCL agrees that the timestamp should be removed [1], but
currently Slime has a funct
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 16:32, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> > In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also
> > replaced it by Clang with the same effect.
>
> Where?
--8<---cut here---start->8---
(define-module (ddc-sbcl)
#:use-module (guix pa
zimoun writes:
> In addition, GCC is also involved in the party. And I have also
> replaced it by Clang with the same effect.
Where?
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Guillaume Le Vaillant writes:
> IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled
> using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then
> the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled in stage 1.
Yes, this is correct.
--
Pierre Neidhardt
https://am
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 15:39, zimoun wrote:
> > IIRC, SBCL itself is built in 2 stages. First its core is compiled
> > using another Common Lisp implementation (currently clisp in Guix), then
> > the complete SBCL is compiled using the core compiled in stage 1. There
> > is probably also an embed
Hi,
Thank you for the explanations.
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 at 14:42, Guillaume Le Vaillant wrote:
> However, some packages generate some source files at build time, usually
> containing things like data type sizes fetched from system header in
> order to use C libraries with FFI. The timestamp of
zimoun skribis:
> Using Guix 58af4c9, the package ’sbcl’ seems not-reproducible.
>
> [...]
>
> I do not know if the patches in ’staging’ will fix this.
>
> Note that this issue does not imply that the build system
> ’asdf-build-system/sbcl’ is or will be not reproducible. However, this
> issues
Dear,
Using Guix 58af4c9, the package ’sbcl’ seems not-reproducible.
The output of “guix challenge” is:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
differing files:
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-rt.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/uiop.fasl
/lib/sbcl/contrib/sb-cover.fasl
/l
13 matches
Mail list logo
