From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 23:07:18 +0200 Message-ID: <87sgqv9m61.fsf@elephly.net> References: <8736j61n57.fsf@gmail.com> <87o91ugdot.fsf@elephly.net> <87ftn5gjzw.fsf@elephly.net> <871ryogu6j.fsf@elephly.net> <87r26nfwes.fsf@elephly.net> <87a7dafntp.fsf@elephly.net> <878ssufajf.fsf@elephly.net> <875znyf0mr.fsf@elephly.net> <87zhl9drm6.fsf@elephly.net> <20190720110612.3f33171f@sybil.lepiller.eu> <87sgr0e7ot.fsf@elephly.net> <87muh7eid5.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]:56971) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hqOTv-0007ep-Hp for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:07:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hqOTu-0006yO-KT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:07:27 -0400 Received: from sender-of-o51.zoho.com ([135.84.80.216]:21281) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hqOTu-0006vJ-83 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:07:26 -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 , 36685@debbugs.gnu.org Hi G=C3=A1bor, >> So, with the following change I was able to build all the way up to the >> latest openjdk. Should we use it despite the introduction of a memory >> leak in a bootstrap JVM? Can we make the patch smaller (fewer uses of >> glibc 2.28 or gcc-5)? >> >> What do you think? >> > > I will have a look at reducing the patch later today. I will report back > tomorrow morning with the results. Did you have any luck with this? --=20 Ricardo