From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 15:40:00 +0200
Message-ID: <87v9u5ee6n.fsf__35403.4135978267$1567777296$gmane$org@elephly.net>
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>
 <CAE4v=pjmPSRCiqBauVMhK=CgfzLnUoN_z8UGfzu7A8uAdFMUbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <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>
 <CAE4v=phrw3vh9Y0vF4wV0Lmir4pmH6OwUTTPiMnaoi=dd6nD+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <87sgqv9m61.fsf@elephly.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41513)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1i6EU5-0003Dl-GQ
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:41:06 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1i6EU4-0004eP-Ip
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:41:05 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:55967)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1i6EU4-0004eC-Fy
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:41:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1i6EU2-00078Z-F1
 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:41:04 -0400
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.36685.B36685.156777722327382@debbugs.gnu.org>
In-reply-to: <87sgqv9m61.fsf@elephly.net>
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
 <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
 <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "bug-Guix" <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor?= Boskovits <boskovits@gmail.com>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>, 36685@debbugs.gnu.org


Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:

>>> 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.
>
> Did you have any luck with this?

We should decide soon, because core-updates is about to be merged
(finally!) =E2=80=93 any objections to my earlier patch?

--=20
Ricardo