-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
guix: Default to building for some supported HOSTs only #6388
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
| # x86_64-w64-mingw32 | ||
|
|
||
| # Default to building for some supported HOSTs only (overridable by environment) | ||
| export HOSTS="${HOSTS:-x86_64-linux-gnu aarch64-linux-gnu riscv64-linux-gnu |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
should we ask in community if anyone has powerpc64 or arm32 to test? maybe there's non-zero demand for it? So far as build succeed, probably the binaries may work as well
| # x86_64-w64-mingw32 | ||
|
|
||
| # Default to building for some supported HOSTs only (overridable by environment) | ||
| export HOSTS="${HOSTS:-x86_64-linux-gnu aarch64-linux-gnu riscv64-linux-gnu |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Consider b58a3b6
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
you mean in addition to changes in contrib/guix/guix-build or as a replacement?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Replacement, I think we should keep upstream code intact as much as we can and add restrictions through CI or our containers
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I disagree, mostly, because very little if any of my automations use the guis-start. They all use guix-buidl
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
./contrib/containers/guix/scripts/guix-start $(pwd) should be a drop-in
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Needs a couple of additional fixes but, yeah, it could work. Pls check #6390.
|
This pull request has conflicts, please rebase. |
|
I think I prefer this PRs approach. Sure it'll cause conflicts. But the conflicts will be very minimal / trivial to resolve. I prefer not needing to change my automation to run the guix-start instead. |
Don't be lazy :P Speaking seriously though, #6390 requires trivial changes in private build scripts - a removal of SDK download and a drop-in replacement for |
…pdate `guix-start` and `guix-check` to work correctly outside of containers c5d482e chore: suppress `git config` output (UdjinM6) 8ce9bfe chore: tweak error message (UdjinM6) f4d879a guix: more sanity checks for `WORKSPACE_PATH` (UdjinM6) 07f056a guix: Let `XCODE_SOURCE` be specified via env (UdjinM6) 74489dc chore: Log when preparing macOS SDK or adding `safe.directory` option (UdjinM6) 3ac5739 guix: "Invert" `guix-start`/`guix-check` cmd-line argument behaviour, defaults to `pwd` (UdjinM6) 187a4f1 guix: Avoid adding duplicate `safe.directory` option (UdjinM6) 87c9786 guix: `guix-start` should respect `SDK_PATH` (UdjinM6) ee5f62b guix: build only supported targets using Guix container (Kittywhiskers Van Gogh) Pull request description: ## Issue being fixed or feature implemented #6382 (comment) #6388 (comment) alternative to #6388 ## What was done? ## How Has This Been Tested? ## Breaking Changes ## Checklist: - [ ] I have performed a self-review of my own code - [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas - [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e tests - [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation - [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository code-owners and collaborators only)_ ACKs for top commit: kwvg: ACK c5d482e Tree-SHA512: c0271f243f5912f55276fcb371a135f443f23cc1f29480f303ea77deeadb6fd7d3d97e07e6a1fa323a2b2bad1d65aa6298da33978832eb68a0a6303db3e0063c
|
Reopen if desired? |
Issue being fixed or feature implemented
#6382 (comment)
What was done?
How Has This Been Tested?
Breaking Changes
Checklist: