←back to thread

Removing Guix from Debian

(lwn.net)
137 points 6581 | 10 comments | 02 Sep 25 14:49 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
yjftsjthsd-h ◴[02 Sep 25 16:46 UTC] No.45105621[source]▶
> For example, he has had to maintain various Guile dependencies, and deal with the fact that Guix uses ""fairly old"" GCC versions whereas Debian usually ships the latest GCC version available for a given release.

It's odd that guix is both rolling release but also uses older GCC versions; usually I'd expect those from very different cultures.

replies(1): >>45106091 #
1. pxc ◴[02 Sep 25 17:19 UTC] No.45106091[source]▶
It seems that it doesn't build with releases of GCC from April 2025 onward, at least with default settings, because it doesn't build with the C23/C++23 standards.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1096790

Maybe such changes are more substantial than the typical differences between GCC releases?

replies(2): >>45106414 #>>45108639 #
2. yjftsjthsd-h ◴[02 Sep 25 17:39 UTC] No.45106414[source]▶
Surely if that's all they would just build with an explicit -std=whatever setting?
replies(1): >>45107125 #
3. opello ◴[02 Sep 25 18:29 UTC] No.45107125[source]▶
Looking at the build log in the linked Debian issue, there is an argument setting -std=c++11. It seems as though an implicit inclusion of <cstdint> had been provided by libstdc++ in the past and was removed as of GCC 15.

https://github.com/bpftrace/bpftrace/pull/3407

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-August/659176...

Looks like they did in fact add the header detail to the porting guide:

https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-15/porting_to.html#header-dep-change...

replies(2): >>45109181 #>>45111953 #
4. vincent-manis ◴[02 Sep 25 20:33 UTC] No.45108639[source]▶
I recently custom-built Guile for my Arch system, and found that it won't build with GCC 15, but will with 14, which is the only other version in the Arch repository. I think that the Guile maintainers will need to get busy fixing the incompatibilities in question, before GCC 16 appears.
5. opello ◴[02 Sep 25 21:18 UTC] No.45109181{3}[source]▶
Just closing some tabs and followed this trail a bit further, it looks like guix fixed the issue too:

https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/commit/7b66b41ce5cee48b14eb6c...

6. cozzyd ◴[03 Sep 25 03:21 UTC] No.45111953{3}[source]▶
it would be nice if g++ had an --implicit-includes=[foo,bar] option that would make it easier for a distro to shotgun fix such incompatibilities with CXXFLAGS rather than doing real work.
replies(3): >>45112157 #>>45113137 #>>45117965 #
7. yjftsjthsd-h ◴[03 Sep 25 04:02 UTC] No.45112157{4}[source]▶
That seems like kicking the can down the road in a way that's worse in the long run IMHO
8. Ashymad ◴[03 Sep 25 07:21 UTC] No.45113137{4}[source]▶
Isn't the --include option basically that?
replies(1): >>45115975 #
9. cozzyd ◴[03 Sep 25 14:05 UTC] No.45115975{5}[source]▶
Ah, you learn something new everyday, thanks!
10. ForOldHack ◴[03 Sep 25 16:50 UTC] No.45117965{4}[source]▶
Isn't that what AI/Vibe coding is for? ( I am kidding a lot)(Ducking thrown paper balls)