Bug#1042889: vm breakage with Emacs 29
Dirk Eddelbuettel writes ("Bug#1042889: vm breakage with Emacs 29"):
> Yes given the previous bug report and fix ensuring no byte-compilation takes
> place for vm may be best. At least until someone (upstream? another dev?)
> understand why it breaks vm.
FTR, I investigated this a bit and I discovered that the regression is
probably because
native-comp-deferred-compilation-deny-list
has been renamed to
native-comp-jit-compilation-deny-list
I think we should ahve a patch that works with both Emacs versions
(since I don't want to complicate backports etc.); currently I have
this:
(eval-after-load "comp"
'(dolist
deny-list '('native-comp-deferred-compilation-deny-list
'native-comp-jit-compilation-deny-list)
(if (boundp deny-list)
(add-to-list deny-list "/vm.*\.el"
but it is wrong in some way that my limited lisp-fu wasn't able to
diagnose in the limited time I have right now.
I will look at this again RSN.
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Bug#1042889: vm breakage with Emacs 29
On 2 August 2023 at 14:41, Ian Jackson wrote:
| Dirk Eddelbuettel writes ("Re: vm breakage with Emacs 29"):
| > On 2 August 2023 at 13:17, Ian Jackson wrote:
| > | Hi. Since you were helpful with #1039105 "Fails to start with Emacs
| > | 28" I thought I would draw your attention to #1042889
| > | "vm: autopkgtest fails against Emacs 29.1" [0]
| > |
| > | I won't have time to look at this until next week, probably. Any help
| > | or background research would be greatly appreciated. We need to fix
| > | this to avoid vm getting autoremoved.
| > |
| > | I did have a quick look at the test log [1] and the failure looks
| > | genuine. I suggest we do any further diagnosis in the bug.
| >
| > The band-aid I found and submitted for #1039105 (ie per Fedora's tracker,
| > "just do not byte compile") seems apt here, no? I still do not really read
| > (or, for that matter, write) elisp but it seems to complain about byte code.
| >
| > So I would try two things:
| > - turn off elisp byte compilation as in #1039105
|
| The patch from #1039105 is still in the package.
Ok.
| Do we need to add to a list of files in it, or something, do you
That was my hunch.
| think ? Maybe it would be best to disable byte compilation
| completely.
Yes given the previous bug report and fix ensuring no byte-compilation takes
place for vm may be best. At least until someone (upstream? another dev?)
understand why it breaks vm.
Dirk
|
| One thing that would be useful would be for someone to try out emacs
| and vm in a sid chroot; that would confirm that this isn't a spurious
| test failure (or confirm that it is).
|
| Thanks,
| Ian.
|
| --
| Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
|
| Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
| that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
--
dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
Bug#1042889: vm breakage with Emacs 29
Dirk Eddelbuettel writes ("Re: vm breakage with Emacs 29"):
> On 2 August 2023 at 13:17, Ian Jackson wrote:
> | Hi. Since you were helpful with #1039105 "Fails to start with Emacs
> | 28" I thought I would draw your attention to #1042889
> | "vm: autopkgtest fails against Emacs 29.1" [0]
> |
> | I won't have time to look at this until next week, probably. Any help
> | or background research would be greatly appreciated. We need to fix
> | this to avoid vm getting autoremoved.
> |
> | I did have a quick look at the test log [1] and the failure looks
> | genuine. I suggest we do any further diagnosis in the bug.
>
> The band-aid I found and submitted for #1039105 (ie per Fedora's tracker,
> "just do not byte compile") seems apt here, no? I still do not really read
> (or, for that matter, write) elisp but it seems to complain about byte code.
>
> So I would try two things:
> - turn off elisp byte compilation as in #1039105
The patch from #1039105 is still in the package.
Do we need to add to a list of files in it, or something, do you
think ? Maybe it would be best to disable byte compilation
completely.
One thing that would be useful would be for someone to try out emacs
and vm in a sid chroot; that would confirm that this isn't a spurious
test failure (or confirm that it is).
Thanks,
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
