From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=A1bor_Boskovits?= Subject: Re: bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents) Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 15:41:29 +0200 Message-ID: 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> <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> <87sgqv9m61.fsf@elephly.net> <87v9u5ee6n.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003baa5e0591e299ef" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41682) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i6EUn-0003t5-21 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:41:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i6EUl-00050r-1T for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:41:48 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]:33211) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i6EUi-0004yA-SU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:41:45 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id o9so6390016edq.0 for ; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 06:41:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87v9u5ee6n.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: Guix-devel , 36685@debbugs.gnu.org --0000000000003baa5e0591e299ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ricardo Wurmus ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2019. szep= t. 6., P=C3=A9n 15:40): > > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > > >>> So, with the following change I was able to build all the way up to t= he > >>> latest openjdk. Should we use it despite the introduction of a memor= y > >>> leak in a bootstrap JVM? Can we make the patch smaller (fewer uses o= f > >>> glibc 2.28 or gcc-5)? > >>> > >>> What do you think? > >>> > >> > >> I will have a look at reducing the patch later today. I will report ba= ck > >> 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? > No objection from here. > > -- > Ricardo > g_bor > --0000000000003baa5e0591e299ef Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> ezt =C3=ADrta (id=C5=91pont: 2019. szept. 6.,= P=C3=A9n 15:40):

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:

>>> So, with the following change I was able to build all the way = up to the
>>> latest openjdk.=C2=A0 Should we use it despite the introductio= n of a memory
>>> leak in a bootstrap JVM?=C2=A0 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 repor= t 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?

No objection from h= ere.

--
Ricardo
g_bor
--0000000000003baa5e0591e299ef--