Re: jfs, jfsutils?

[Michael Zucchi]

Hi Tobias,

On 14/12/19 2:37 am, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> Michael Zucchi 写道：

> > I'm not really sure where to put it or how to compile each part (it just
>
> file-systems.scm if possible.  linux.scm is already a bloated grab-bag.
>
> For now, you can test each package at a time by adding the variable 
> (e.g ‘jfs_fsck/static’) as the last line of your current .scm file.  
> This will make the file ‘evaluate to jfs_fsck/static’, so you can:
>
>  $ guix build -f thefile.scm
>
> You'll have to change that last line every time you want to change the 
> package being built.
Ok cool.  Yeah I was doing that for testing but it seemed clunky.
> You'll need a Guix git checkout to get much further.  If you haven't 
> yet done so, read ‘Building from Git’ in the manual and bootstrap 
> yourself some Guix.
Actually before I downloaded the binary I tried that (and creating 
slackware packages of the many dependencies), but although everything 
compiled ok it just crashed with an obtuse stack trace whenever I tried 
doing anything.  Maybe I missed something along the way, but I can't 
remember the details now.  It was a frustrating introduction.

No doubt it will be easier within a guix environment.

> > build jfsutils, not jfs_fsck/static) and I used the slackware patches,
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Typo that should be the other way 'round?
Oh I just meant that the .scm file only compiles one part of the 
package, but that's covered by your directions above (to add the desired 
name to the end of the file) - which I was doing anyway while developing it.

> Are you sure that LDFLAGS=-static is needed when using 
> static-package?  Here's my aborted static version:
>
> ++(define-public jfsutils/static
> ++  (static-package
> ++   (package
> ++     (inherit jfsutils)
> ++     (name "jfsutils-static")
> ++     (inputs
> ++      `(("util-linux" ,util-linux)
> ++        ("util-linux:static" ,util-linux "static"))))))
>
> I got my patches from Debian, but they do the same job.  There were 
> others[0] but they weren't vital or relevant to Guix.
Looks like you're right.  While I was writing the description I didn't 
know about 'outputs' of packages or the 'static' output of util-linux 
and it wasn't building a static binary by default, so the -static flag 
was to force it - and expose the missing build requirement.

Incidentally the e2fsprogs in linux.scm doesn't make the /static build 
public, does it matter?

Also, should it be '(inputs' or '(native-inputs', since it's static it 
has no runtime dependencies?  Is that what they're for?

> ;; COPYING is gpl3, the headers are gpl2+?
>
> That's interesting.  Where'd you find gpl2+?
I just wasn't sure as the headers in all the .c files are gpl2+ and 
COPYING is gpl3 - but nothing in the archive (or home page - that i 
could find) actually refers to that file or any specific version. But on 
reflection gpl3 should be correct based on COPYING.

Ok well thanks for all the pointers.

I'm currently distracted with some other stuff (all sort of hacking and 
other things) but when I get back to it I guess i'll get a guix 
bootstrapped, add the functions, and then keep poking towards the goal 
of a system image.  I've already noticed gnu/build/file-systems.scm 
needs some additions for example.  I don't particularly like lisps - 
last time i touched any was writing gnome-doc.el about 20 years ago! -  
so I should also brush up on scheme and familiarise myself with the 
guile repl.

Cheers,
 Z