From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: Fixing ant-bootstrap / jamvm segfault (i686) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 09:52:07 +0200 Message-ID: <87a7aqgorh.fsf@elephly.net> References: <87v9tsped0.fsf@elephly.net> <87blv6gqjt.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39468) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iDl3A-0002AA-4P for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 03:52:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iDl38-0004Q1-8M for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 03:52:23 -0400 In-reply-to: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits Cc: Guix-devel , julien lepiller G=C3=A1bor Boskovits writes: > Ricardo Wurmus ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2019. sz= ept. 27., > P=C3=A9n 9:14): > >> >> Hi G=C3=A1bor, >> >> > Ricardo Wurmus ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2019.= szept. 16., >> > H=C3=A9t 15:20): >> > >> >> Hi Guix, >> >> >> >> here=E2=80=99s a probably needlessly complicated patch to fix the bui= ld of >> >> ant-bootstrap. It currently fails to build because jamvm >> >> segfaults. >> >> [=E2=80=A6] >> >> >> I=E2=80=99m almost certain that not all of these configure flags are = needed. >> >> What do you think? Would someone like to play a little with this pat= ch >> >> and see if we can figure out why exactly jamvm segfaults? >> >> >> > I will try to have a look at this again in the coming days. >> > >> >> >> >> I used this command to build ant-bootstrap: >> >> >> >> ./pre-inst-env guix build -K --system=3Di686-linux -e '(@@ (gnu >> packages >> >> java) ant-bootstrap)' >> >> Have you been able to take a look at this? I=E2=80=99d like to push thi= s or a >> variant >> of it to the core-updates branch soon. >> > Not yet. I will have a look tomorrow and report back if that is not too > late. Tomorrow would be just fine. There=E2=80=99s no real rush, but I=E2=80=99d= like to avoid forgetting about this when we already have the means to fix lots of broken packages on core-updates. Thanks for taking a look at this! -- Ricardo