Leo Famulari writes: > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:28:49PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote: >> Hello! >> >> 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). >> >> 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]: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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". I agree. > 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. I ran this command from a glibc git checkout: $ git format-patch -p --minimal --no-signature -o ~/guix/gnu/packages/patches/ \ glibc-2.26..origin/release/2.26/master Afterwards, in ~/guix/gnu/packages/patches: $ rename 's/^(\d{4})-.*\.patch/glibc-2-26-$1.patch/' 00*.patch And adjusted gnu/local.mk and glibc source accordingly. The patch is ~30k lines. WDYT?