[bug#29406] [PATCH core-updates]: Add selected upstream fixes for glibc 2.26.

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hello!

Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com> skribis:

> I discovered that 'icu4c' failed to build for x86_64 on 'core-updates'.
> After some investigation, it turns out to be a problem with <math.h> in
> C++ mode, due to its usage of C-only builtins (in the 2.26 release).

[...]

> So I wonder if we should simply pick everything from this branch,
> instead of only the few that fixes immediately visible problems.
> Thoughts?

Cherry-picking like you did sounds reasonable to me.

That said, as discussed on IRC, I think that it’s up to upstream to tell
us what code we should be building, and a simple way to do that is by
making a bug-fix release.

> From 7121dc7ed24e97080154794fb14ae4078a3451f7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Marius Bakke <mbakke@fastmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 22:26:31 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: glibc: Add selected fixes from upstream stable branch.
>
> This backports a small subset of
> <https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.26/master>.
>
> * gnu/packages/patches/glibc-2.26-cpp-fixes.patch,
> gnu/packages/patches/glibc-2.26-ifunc-resolver-longjmp.patch,
> gnu/packages/patches/glibc-2.26-resolver-fixes.patch: New files.
> * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Register them.
> * gnu/packages/base.scm (glibc/linux)[source](patches): Use them.

Great that you created one patch for each category of bug.

LGTM!

After applying, you can restart an evaluation of ‘core-updates’.

Thanks,
Ludo’.