From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id CMc8EkliIF9WGgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:37:13 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id yOwKDkliIF83BgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:37:13 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9607E94053B for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:37:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:46524 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0TXK-0004je-IX for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:37:10 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57024) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0TXC-0004jA-BP for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:37:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:47469) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0TXC-0004uK-25 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:37:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k0TXB-0006bx-Vb for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:37:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#42342: Wine64 segfaults (5.12/staging) Resent-From: Leo Prikler Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:37:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 42342 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: 42342@debbugs.gnu.org, bug-guix@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.159595781925405 (code B ref -1); Tue, 28 Jul 2020 17:37:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Jul 2020 17:36:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59015 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k0TX9-0006bh-8X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:36:59 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:48990) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k0TX7-0006bZ-Jl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:36:57 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57022) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0TX7-0004ix-DG for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:36:57 -0400 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:37273) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k0TX4-0004tH-FP for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:36:56 -0400 Received: from nijino.local (213-147-177-210.hdsl.highway.telekom.at [213.147.177.210]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BGP4D3wPJz3wFP; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:36:44 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1595957804; bh=7lh0jOXdoOt9t+tyEwyi9LT2+EcoquMX6Pc3e4SrZvs=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=QO/574XmZvjIL06qmPyq5nfzXM23Kd5DKnOXQJtR8zbaHGczh+5VxduRN/KibQLAK FjsrMzWPvxtDz+2UrYqeTTuzn0OXt93KP35vggwgfWCwdG9+MrzuAmvIsFG+JluaKp 1KCA8I5XY+hrO2jnftDd4kUqSX/lM7AqZQHGg19M= Message-ID: From: Leo Prikler Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 19:36:43 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87ft9bzim7.fsf@nckx> References: <0f14a6d95dbdd04c8ff9da03a47f0d205a5e1002.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87ft9bzim7.fsf@nckx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.116 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/07/28 13:36:46 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 42342@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=QO/574Xm; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=student.tugraz.at (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.09 X-TUID: 9G0IY26tb8wz Am Dienstag, den 28.07.2020, 18:53 +0200 schrieb Tobias Geerinckx-Rice: > Leo Prikler 写道： > > I'll use inferiors as a local workaround for the time being and > > wait > > for the problem to be fixed upstream. I'll also look into 5.9 > > to 5.11 > > and perhaps provide a proper downgrade patch later on. > > I admit to being a bit confused. IIRC on #guix you reported that > wine-staging was broken, not wine64-staging. If you only want to > downgrade the latter, that's all right by me, but I consider that > one of the risks of using the staging branch to begin with. > > Is there a reason you rely on staging, and the 64-bit version to > boot? > > Kind regards, > > T G-R I'm referring to the package "wine64-staging", which is on master. I may have been confused myself at the time I mentioned this in #guix, but now I have tested this a bit more thoroughly. For one, I've historically been using wine64, since (at least on Guix) it works with both 32bit and 64bit software and I sometimes stumble upon the latter. As a result, I have a 64bit wine prefix and using wine (or wine-staging) does not really work well with that. I was able to determine that plain wine is unaffected by running the same commands on a machine with no existing prefix. (Note, that regular wine64 still fails with a fresh prefix.) My experiments with wine64-staging were solely meant as a way of finding the point at which wine64 fails, I have no intent of actually using it for more than that. I'm not quite sure, what exactly is at fault here. It could be upstream, or it could be the magic that we use to merge 32 and 64 bit wine. TL;DR: The affected packages are wine64 and wine64-staging, the latter of which is broken beyond 5.8 (though 5.9 would work as well). Since this affects the 64bit version of wine specifically, we either have to fix something in our build (not sure what) or desync wine and wine64 (same with -staging variants) Regards, Leo