From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41961) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHsx3-0002z2-UG for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 09:58:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHsx0-0000oJ-LL for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 09:58:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:45317) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eHsx0-0000ne-CD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 09:58:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eHswz-0005OE-TV for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Nov 2017 09:58:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#29406] [PATCH core-updates]: Add selected upstream fixes for glibc 2.26. Resent-Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 09:57:02 -0500 From: Leo Famulari Message-ID: <20171123145702.GA5794@jasmine.lan> References: <87mv3eove6.fsf@fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ibTvN161/egqYuK8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mv3eove6.fsf@fastmail.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Marius Bakke Cc: 29406@debbugs.gnu.org --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:28:49PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote: > Hello! >=20 > I discovered that 'icu4c' failed to build for x86_64 on 'core-updates'. > After some investigation, it turns out to be a problem with in > C++ mode, due to its usage of C-only builtins (in the 2.26 release). >=20 > Here are the relevant bug reports I've found so far by digging through > the "release/2.26/master" branch, aka "2.26 stable"[0]: >=20 > > > > >=20 > The attached patch includes the fixes from those bugs, as well as a > couple of others that looked important. However it's still a very small > subset of the 2.26 post-release fixes. >=20 > I've read through _most_ of the commits and around half of them look > important enough to pick "unconditionally". The other half I mainly > lack the context or skills to assess. >=20 > So I wonder if we should simply pick everything from this branch, > instead of only the few that fixes immediately visible problems. > Thoughts? Based on this discussion [0], I think we should take the whole branch. It sounds like commits on the release branches are considered important bug fixes and "stable". There was talk of a mid-October 2.26.1 release, but that didn't happen, as we know. Are you able to prepare a patch, Marius? If not, I can do it later tonight. [0] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-09/msg01134.html --ibTvN161/egqYuK8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAloW4bsACgkQJkb6MLrK fwjnNxAA3gmBSIAJTk5fhn7KUZLNRcEQ3fQDli5A92V5N6iX9PI4pwCaoBZub/Ii Y5dRnsr7tEbobksERMF9cfkFFRUC339EzQus9wEv3zxHT5sBRfvsT3p58BH9CItf RAh2AbmMEW4Hk0DSlSimWGc5AxW16RptCHlMNkEciOtmMWYE7X6vb/pvJ11iMb+q Squye+thY9znz/b8ob3oD3Ki3EF1V6Thqr2YGZycq5tgCV9PMiMk3oGdAtMnO3jw ePYI8jlFtwHQgpVpfYlBWtafYintWViEB14UHyhG79VxmIqZzicsGJkyHbOEigLF j2K7/PkcU5khBmsf0dqojRpr7RgCOIJiEO8Gmu1rAT4RAlMrCCz78mtyyIRUQdFO R8Vo4IZ0ri2allubDvMEpDPgImo7W4qqHwe45lsc/HhjwkuftBKZi5B5R2Yj4n0x TrTTJ72pDAGgy861GjV8O34Q0jkoSveL3KimniT0jbFqqAV8wIlzWZWdvHP/9kAu d+s/nFNOJDtVO4kyHyIWehldQQnZorcEcI1r5DofEY07MMYPsHTLEx6KlGmF+acc V7Qh/TRGq9dByEwVGdRKPEANWYLPgJ5YGPFDjlibBl3Qhs4fX2gMJcp0nnx/k1dv YC+i/yc+sjjBC3+mwt8LXwoCb+/l1k4OM1GlwYzvWtj07LWQcAY= =GPWz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ibTvN161/egqYuK8--