From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor_Boskovits?= Subject: Re: bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 17:57:35 +0200 Message-ID: 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: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006ef09d058e330502" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54972) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hpEDg-0004n4-4z for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:57:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hpEDf-00071a-8K for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:57:52 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]:41992) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hpEDe-00070W-Vn for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 11:57:51 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id v15so38554572eds.9 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 08:57:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87muh7eid5.fsf@elephly.net> 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: Guix-devel , 36685@debbugs.gnu.org --0000000000006ef09d058e330502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, Ricardo Wurmus ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2019. j=C3= =BAl. 21., Vas 13:29): > 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. > > -- > Ricardo > --0000000000006ef09d058e330502 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello,

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2019. j=C3= =BAl. 21., Vas 13:29):
So, with the= following change I was able to build all the way up to the
latest openjdk.=C2=A0 Should we use it despite the introduction of a memory=
leak in a bootstrap JVM?=C2=A0 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 w= ill report back tomorrow morning with the results.
<= br>


--
Ricardo
--0000000000006ef09d058e330502--