Subject: Re: none

From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 15:14:42 +0100

Hi,

Efraim Flashner <[email-masked]> skribis:

> From 2db156170a24fea36aced781faf96c839a3b7d15 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Efraim Flashner <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 20:19:11 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: patchelf: Update to 0.10.
>
> * gnu/packages/elf.scm (patchelf): Update to 0.10.
> [source]: Remove patches.
> [arguments]: Remove patch/rework-for-arm phase. Add phase to modify
> tests for our modified GCC package.
> [native-inputs]: Add gcc:lib.
> * gnu/packages/patches/patchelf-page-size.patch,
> * gnu/packages/patches/patchelf-rework-for-arm.patch: Remove files.
> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Remove them.

[...]

> +       (modify-phases %standard-phases
> +         (add-after 'unpack 'fix-tests
> +           ;; Our GCC code ensures that RUNPATH is never empty, it includes
> +           ;; at least glibc/lib and gcc:lib/lib.
> +           (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys)
> +             (substitute* "tests/no-rpath.sh"
> +               (("^if test.*") "")
> +               (("/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx") (string-append (assoc-ref inputs "gcc:lib")
> +                                                    "/lib")))

Could you complement the above comment with something like: “Thus,
disable the test that checks for an empty RUNPATH.”, or whatever is
appropriate?  That will clarify the intent because it’s not obvious what
the substitution is doing if you don’t have the file at hand.  :-)

Otherwise LGTM, thanks for addressing this issue!

Ludo’.