bug#26462: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: icu4c: Fix crashes in programs using system ICU.

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> skribis:

> Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> writes:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Clément Lassieur <clement@lassieur.org> skribis:
>>>
>>>> * gnu/packages/patches/icu4c-reset-keyword-list-iterator.patch: New file.
>>>> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Add it.
>>>> * gnu/packages/icu4c.scm (icu4c)[source]: Use it.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/icu4c-reset-keyword-list-iterator.patch
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
>>>> +Copied from upstream: http://bugs.icu-project.org/trac/changeset/39484/.
>>>> +
>>>> +Paths and line endings have been adapted.
>>>
>>> Woow, good catch!
>>>
>>> 1,700 packages depend on icu4c so the update would have to go to
>>> ‘core-updates’, but that won’t be merged until several weeks.
>>>
>>> For ‘master’, in the meantime, I see two solutions:
>>>
>>>   1. If the bug only affects specific applications, we could add an
>>>      icu4c variant and use that only where needed (icecat, 0ad, etc.).
>>>
>>>   2. If the bug manifests itself pervasively we could graft it in
>>>      ‘master’ (I guess it’s ABI-compatible, right?).
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I prefer the second solution, in case the bug appears in other
>> applications as well, and I think it is ABI-compatible.  I just sent the
>> patch for the graft in master.  I'll do the patch for core-updates
>> later, when master is merged into it.
>
> But I might be wrong :)  If you think the first solution is better,
> don't hesitate to tell me, I'll do another patch.

No no, I trust you!  I mean, making a graft in master is the safest
approach anyway.

Ludo’.