GNU bug report logs - #37200
[PATCH] gnu: Add roswell.

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>

Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:34:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz>
Cc: 37200 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#37200] [PATCH] gnu: Add roswell.
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 14:05:56 +0200
Hi Pierre,

Pierre Neidhardt <mail <at> ambrevar.xyz> skribis:

> Thanks for the review!
>
> After some discussion with upstream, it does not seem that Roswell can
> be used without using a binary blob of SBCL:
>
> https://github.com/roswell/roswell/issues/387
>
> So I don't think that makes it a good fit for a Guix package.
>
> A few options:
>
> - Patch Roswell so that it takes Guix' SBCL instead of its own (could be
> a lot of work).
>
> - Patchelf the binary blob.

It’s clear that “patchelf the binary blob” is not an option in Guix.

The description for Roswell says it’s a tool for “installing and
managing Common Lisp implementations”.  If its job is precisely to
download and run pre-built binaries, then perhaps that would require
significant changes in Roswell itself so that it patches the binaries it
downloads?

But then again, if Roswell is about downloading pre-built binaries, we
should be careful about what’s going on.  After all, that might be
partly redundant with what Guix does, except that those binaries it
downloads may be non-reproducible or may even lack and build recipe
altogether.

So… the story about these pre-built binaries raises a red flag for me,
and I’m not sure what can be done here.

Thoughts?

Ludo’.




This bug report was last modified 5 years and 241 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.