GNU bug report logs - #78233
[PATCH 0/2 electronics-team] Upgrade nextpnr.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Cayetano Santos <csantosb <at> inventati.org>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 78233 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Gabriel Wicki <gabriel <at> erlikon.ch>, Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>
Subject: [bug#78233] [PATCH 1/2] gnu: Add nextpnr.
Date: Fri, 09 May 2025 20:33:21 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

>jeu. 08 mai 2025 at 21:43, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Why do we not build the GUI?  We already have the Qt dependencies, it
> seems.

Simply, I’m  unable to compile 0.8 with the gui flag on.

To me, the priority now is providing in Guix a place and route workflow
for all available nextpnr backends in cli mode, which is what most
engineers use. In a second time, we will investigate how to build the
gui and how activate other interesting options, but I’d rather prefer
this point not to be a big stopper to what really matters.

> Well done!  If the source changes often, a patch could be more
> maintainable; ideally in way that can be forwarded upstream too, with
> good chances of being merged.  That's less work for us in the long term.

Generally speaking, I see what you mean. In this very case, I don’t
understand how to replace current invocations to inputs
(this-package-input) with a patch; neither I see how upstream might
consider a patch to Guix only requirements, specially, as there is no
support to compilations not using the 3rd party modules they provide.

C.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

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