Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-08 Thread Michael Cree
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 09:00:22PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 10/8/21 20:52, Rob Browning wrote: > > Then, once that's uploaded were you planning to handle the reverse dep > > rebuilds, and/or what coordination might we need there? > > We can just rebuild all of these reverse

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-08 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 10/8/21 20:52, Rob Browning wrote: > Then, once that's uploaded were you planning to handle the reverse dep > rebuilds, and/or what coordination might we need there? We can just rebuild all of these reverse dependencies, yes. Adrian Bunk is probably happy to take care of that job, he has

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-08 Thread Rob Browning
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes: > But again, we're doing this all the time and this affects a non-release > architecture. I never said this flag should be passed for amd64 or arm64. Understood. I was specifically thinking about any existing alpha deployments and what the constraints might

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-08 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 10/8/21 05:08, Michael Cree wrote: > I am still of the opinion that we should try in the first instance > to find the real problem in the toolchain and fix it there. The bug > affects packages other than guile and only on SMP systems. I'm not arguing against fixing this bug. But without

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-08 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 10/8/21 03:13, Rob Browning wrote: > And while we can, of course, rebuild all the reverse deps (presumably > only acceptable for testing/sid), doing so may still break things for > anyone outside debian who's been relying on our packages (if we'd ever > had any in testing -- sounds like maybe

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-07 Thread Michael Cree
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 03:03:38AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On 10/8/21 03:00, Rob Browning wrote: > > If we've never had a 3.0 viable for alpha, for example, then we can of > > course do whatever we like, with the realization that if we disable > > threads there now, we may be

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-07 Thread Rob Browning
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes: > The alpha architecture is not part of any distribution which is why this > argument is moot. I was not asking for this option to be set to an release > architecture. > > Also, *if* we break the ABI, we can just rebuild all affected packages. We > do that with

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-07 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hello Rob! On 10/8/21 02:56, Rob Browning wrote: > I've checked with upstream, and while they were not certain that > changing the --with-threads setting still breaks the library API, they > thought it probably did, which I believe means we have to assume that it > does (or could in the future),

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-07 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
On 10/8/21 03:00, Rob Browning wrote: > If we've never had a 3.0 viable for alpha, for example, then we can of > course do whatever we like, with the realization that if we disable > threads there now, we may be stuck with that choice until 3.2. We can always break the ABI in a controlled manner.

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-07 Thread Rob Browning
Rob Browning writes: > Given that, I think we may have at least these constraints: Oh, and I haven't figured out what the current situation is wrt the affected architectures on this front yet -- was just describing the constraints. If we've never had a 3.0 viable for alpha, for example, then

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-07 Thread Rob Browning
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes: > Without --without-threads, guile would not build on SMP systems and even > the built package would crash on SMP systems. > > If disabling threads would break the ABI, we could just rebuild the affected > reverse dependencies on the builds using the normal

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-03 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Hi Rob! On 10/3/21 20:27, Rob Browning wrote: > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes: > >> Both guile-2.2 and guile-3.0 FTBFS on alpha when built with thread >> support. Passing --without-threads to configure disables thread >> support and fixes the build. > > Hmm, I'm not certain we can do this

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-03 Thread Rob Browning
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz writes: > Both guile-2.2 and guile-3.0 FTBFS on alpha when built with thread > support. Passing --without-threads to configure disables thread > support and fixes the build. Hmm, I'm not certain we can do this unless we've never had a successful build on the relevant

Bug#995614: guile-3.0: Please build with --without-threads on alpha to fix FTBFS

2021-10-03 Thread John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
Source: guile-3.0 Version: 3.0.7-1 Severity: normal Tags: patch User: debian-al...@lists.debian.org Usertags: alpha X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-al...@lists.debian.org Hello! Both guile-2.2 and guile-3.0 FTBFS on alpha when built with thread support. Passing --without-threads to configure disables