bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-15 Thread Chris Marusich
Hi, At commit 464a29d3d74e7d2f27042db6ab166bfdbe1f992e ('git branch --all --contains 464a29d3d74e7d2f27042db6ab166bfdbe1f992e' tells me that only core-updates has this commit at this time), the following error occurs when trying to build ant-bootstrap, which causes the 409 dependent packages to fa

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-16 Thread Gábor Boskovits
Hi, Chris Marusich ezt írta (időpont: 2019. júl. 16., Ke 8:59): > Hi, > > At commit 464a29d3d74e7d2f27042db6ab166bfdbe1f992e ('git branch --all > --contains 464a29d3d74e7d2f27042db6ab166bfdbe1f992e' tells me that only > core-updates has this commit at this time), the following error occurs > whe

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-16 Thread Efraim Flashner
Building with gcc-5 didn't make it suddenly start working, before anyone goes down that path. -- Efraim Flashner אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted signature.asc Description:

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-16 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Chris Marusich writes: > Hi, > > At commit 464a29d3d74e7d2f27042db6ab166bfdbe1f992e ('git branch --all > --contains 464a29d3d74e7d2f27042db6ab166bfdbe1f992e' tells me that only > core-updates has this commit at this time), the following error occurs > when trying to build ant-bootstrap, which c

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-17 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Ricardo Wurmus writes: > However, this doesn’t seem to help. Yes, the bootstrap script no longer > aborts but it gets stuck compiling things. I can’t get it to tell me > anything about the compilation progress, but strace shows me that it > keeps stat’ing for non-existent files like "/tmp/file

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-17 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Ricardo Wurmus writes: > I have confirmed that this is the problem by replacing “while > (VMFile.exists(file.path))” with “while (false)”. The build doesn’t > fully complete then either, but it gets past the compilation of the Ant > source files. This clears JamVM and Jikes. It doesn’t. VMFi

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-18 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > >> I have confirmed that this is the problem by replacing “while >> (VMFile.exists(file.path))” with “while (false)”. The build doesn’t >> fully complete then either, but it gets past the compilation of the Ant >> source files. This clears Ja

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-19 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Here’s a shorter patch: > > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > diff --git a/gnu/packages/java.scm b/gnu/packages/java.scm > index 403c446a82..bd98784232 100644 > --- a/gnu/packages/java.scm > +++ b/gnu/packages/java.scm > @@ -152,6 +152,1

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-19 Thread Gábor Boskovits
Hello, Ricardo Wurmus ezt írta (időpont: 2019. júl. 19., P, 8:09): > > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > > Here’s a shorter patch: > > > > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > > diff --git a/gnu/packages/java.scm b/gnu/packages/java.scm > > index 403c446a82..bd98784232 100

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-19 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Hi Gábor, > Ricardo Wurmus ezt írta (időpont: 2019. júl. 19., P, > 8:09): > >> >> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> > Here’s a shorter patch: >> > >> > --8<---cut here---start->8--- >> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/java.scm b/gnu/packages/java.scm >> > index 403c446a8

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-19 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Ricardo Wurmus writes: >>> Illegal instruction? This uses JamVM 2.0.0 as the JVM. I’ll try to >>> figure out what instruction this is and where it comes from. >> >> I hit the same bug now. > > Good. We need to figure out why – is it miscompilation? Tuning to a > different CPU type…? With t

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-20 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Ricardo Wurmus writes: > The build aborts early with “ERROR: FreeType version 2.2.1 or higher is > required.” So I added this: > > (substitute* "patches/freetypeversion.patch" >(("REQUIRED_FREETYPE_VERSION = 2.2.1") > "REQUIRED_FREETYPE_VERSION = 2.10.1")) > > and icedtea is being bu

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-20 Thread Julien Lepiller
Le Sat, 20 Jul 2019 10:42:25 +0200, Ricardo Wurmus a écrit : > configure: error: Could not find required system headers; install the > appropriate files from glibc-headers, libc6-dev and/or libattr-devel, > libattr1-dev or use --disable-compile-against-syscalls if necessary. Can you check the co

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-20 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Julien Lepiller writes: > Le Sat, 20 Jul 2019 10:42:25 +0200, > Ricardo Wurmus a écrit : > >> configure: error: Could not find required system headers; install the >> appropriate files from glibc-headers, libc6-dev and/or libattr-devel, >> libattr1-dev or use --disable-compile-against-syscalls

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-21 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
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? diff --git a/gnu/packages/java.scm b/gnu/p

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-21 Thread Gábor Boskovits
Hello, Ricardo Wurmus ezt írta (időpont: 2019. júl. 21., Vas 13:29): > 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

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-07-24 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Hi Gábor, >> 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

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-09-06 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
Ricardo Wurmus 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

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-09-06 Thread Gábor Boskovits
Ricardo Wurmus ezt írta (időpont: 2019. szept. 6., Pén 15:40): > > Ricardo Wurmus 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 p

bug#36685: ant-bootstrap fails on core-updates (409 dependents)

2019-09-07 Thread Ricardo Wurmus
I reduced the patch and built openjdk once more to test that it all works. I pushed the changes in a series of commits ending with 6b7e09ae6b to core-updates. -- Ricardo