Re: Core updates status

On Thu, May 09, 2024 at 11:38:07AM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > Andreas Enge writes: > > > Hello, > > > > Am Mon, May 06, 2024 at 10:47:13AM +0200 schrieb Josselin Poiret: > >> Maxim Cournoyer writes: > >> > I don't mind too much; when we re-enable the change we should add a

Re: Core updates status

On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 11:03:02AM +0200, Josselin Poiret wrote: > > The one thing that we need to do right now is update glibc 2.39 with all > the fixes from the upstream release/2.39/master branch. I don't think > we've done this before significantly, but since we have an occasion this > time

Re: Core updates status

Thanks, Felix and Maxim, for your explanations! Andreas

Re: Core updates status

Hi Josselin, Josselin Poiret writes: > Hi Ludo, > > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> I’m in favor of whatever allows us to move forward more quickly, so >> temporarily stashing away the pkgconf changes sounds good to me. >> >> In that case, when time permits, could you push a ‘core-updates-new’

Re: Core updates status

Hi Andreas, Andreas Enge writes: > Hello, > > Am Mon, May 06, 2024 at 10:47:13AM +0200 schrieb Josselin Poiret: >> Maxim Cournoyer writes: >> > I don't mind too much; when we re-enable the change we should add a >> > phase to the gnu-build-system automatically deleting/moving the libtool >> >

Re: Core updates status

Hi Andreas, On Wed, May 08 2024, Andreas Enge wrote: > I am a little bit confused by the suggestion; you mean removing all > .la files from all packages? I don't mean to answer for Josselin but at least in Debian, which seems to be acceptable as a reference from time to time, there has been a

Re: Core updates status

Hello, Am Mon, May 06, 2024 at 10:47:13AM +0200 schrieb Josselin Poiret: > Maxim Cournoyer writes: > > I don't mind too much; when we re-enable the change we should add a > > phase to the gnu-build-system automatically deleting/moving the libtool > > archives. so that we're covered. > > I

Re: Core updates status

Hi Ludo, Ludovic Courtès writes: > I’m in favor of whatever allows us to move forward more quickly, so > temporarily stashing away the pkgconf changes sounds good to me. > > In that case, when time permits, could you push a ‘core-updates-new’ (?) > branch, (partially) rebased and without the

Re: Core updates status

Hi Josselin and all, Josselin Poiret skribis: > Maxim Cournoyer writes: >> Josselin Poiret writes: [...] >>> I'm worried this will keep accumulating a bunch of world rebuilds, >>> slowing down c-u some more. I'd vote to keep the pkgconf switch for >>> later and focus on merging the rest of

Re: Core updates status

Hi Maxim, Maxim Cournoyer writes: > Hi Josselin, > > Josselin Poiret writes: > > [...] > >> However, as you can see, these are non-local failures: build failures >> have to be fixed in a dependency, which incurs a lot of rebuilding. >> I've fixed a couple of them locally, but here's a nasty

Re: Core updates status

Hi Josselin, Josselin Poiret writes: [...] > However, as you can see, these are non-local failures: build failures > have to be fixed in a dependency, which incurs a lot of rebuilding. > I've fixed a couple of them locally, but here's a nasty one I just got > stuck on: curl has a .la file with

Re: Core updates status

Hi everyone, I've just cleaned up the c-u branch locally (removing all the duplicated commits) and rebased it on master since we're going to have to rewrite history anyways. I'm trying to build a bit with it to double check that nothing got messed up in the process, so I haven't pushed that

Re: Core updates status

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 01:56:12PM +0100, Steve George wrote: > Hi, > > On 25 Apr, Kaelyn wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024 at 11:08 PM, Steve George > > wrote: > (...) > > > - guile-rsvg failing > > > - https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=70537 > > > - I'm able to

Re: Core updates status

Hi, On 25 Apr, Kaelyn wrote: > Hi, > > On Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024 at 11:08 PM, Steve George > wrote: (...) > > - guile-rsvg failing > > - https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=70537 > > - I'm able to build librsvg@2.56.4 but not guile-rsvg > > - guile-rsvg@2.18.1 / guile2.2-rsvg > >

Re: Core updates status

Hi, On Tuesday, April 23rd, 2024 at 11:08 PM, Steve George wrote: > > > Hi, > > We're trying to stabilise and merge core-updates, help definitely wanted! > > https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=70456 > > So far the main blockers are: > > - guile-rsvg failing > -

Re: Core updates status

Hi Steve, It would be good to confirm this one: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=40316 Still fails to reproduce with those changes applied. The culprit is in nss/cmd/shlibsign/shlibsign.c: shlibSignHMAC generates a new key-pair each time it's run:     /* Generate a DSA key

Re: Core updates status

Okay, I'll let you know as soon as I know. On 24/04/2024 14:17, Steve George wrote: Hi, You just need to checkout core-updates and then 'start building'! It would be good to confirm this one: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=40316 It looks like Zhen Junjie applied two patches

Re: Core updates status

Hi, You just need to checkout core-updates and then 'start building'! It would be good to confirm this one: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=40316 It looks like Zhen Junjie applied two patches to fix NSS cross-compilation on Master [0] Maybe master and core-updates have diverged

Re: Core updates status

Hi Steve, On 24/04/2024 07:08, Steve George wrote: Hi, We're trying to stabilise and merge core-updates, help definitely wanted! I'd love to help! Any of these issues novice-friendly? Will there be a point release after core-updates is merged? Kind regards, Christina

Core updates status

Hi, We're trying to stabilise and merge core-updates, help definitely wanted! https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=70456 So far the main blockers are: - guile-rsvg failing - https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=70537 - I'm able to build librsvg@2.56.4 but not guile-rsvg

Re: 'core-updates' status

On 08/26/2017 03:04 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Leo Famulari skribis: > >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 08:34:21PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: >>> 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 on i686, and the grafting >>> failures should now be fixed. Are we ready to merge

Re: 'core-updates' status

Leo Famulari skribis: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 08:34:21PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: >> 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 on i686, and the grafting >> failures should now be fixed. Are we ready to merge this branch? :-) > > I think it's ready. There are a

Re: 'core-updates' status

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 10:57:12PM +0300, Manolis Ragkousis wrote: > On 08/25/17 21:34, Marius Bakke wrote: > > Hello! > > > > 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 on i686, and the grafting > > failures should now be fixed. Are we ready to merge this branch? :-) > > > > Does

Re: 'core-updates' status

On 08/25/17 21:34, Marius Bakke wrote: > Hello! > > 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 on i686, and the grafting > failures should now be fixed. Are we ready to merge this branch? :-) > Does cross-compilation work? Because I cannot cross-compile anything for any target I tried

Re: 'core-updates' status

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 08:34:21PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: > 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 on i686, and the grafting > failures should now be fixed. Are we ready to merge this branch? :-) I think it's ready. There are a handful of failing packages left, but I assume they will

Re: 'core-updates' status

Marius Bakke writes: > Marius Bakke writes: > >> What do you think, are we ready to merge this branch? There are ~2k >> armhf packages left in the queue, but many of them have already changed >> in 'master' and thus will need to be rebuilt anyway. > >

Re: 'core-updates' status

Christopher Baines skribis: > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:34:45 +0200 > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > >> Christopher Baines skribis: >> >> > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:24:29 +0200 >> > Marius Bakke wrote: >> > >> >> 'core-updates'

Re: 'core-updates' status

On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 10:34:45 +0200 l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > Christopher Baines skribis: > > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:24:29 +0200 > > Marius Bakke wrote: > > > >> 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 and i686. There > >> are a

Re: 'core-updates' status

Christopher Baines skribis: > On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:24:29 +0200 > Marius Bakke wrote: > >> 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 and i686. There are a >> few failing packages still, but nothing too scary. Please try to fix >> some if you can!

Re: 'core-updates' status

Marius Bakke writes: > What do you think, are we ready to merge this branch? There are ~2k > armhf packages left in the queue, but many of them have already changed > in 'master' and thus will need to be rebuilt anyway. I started a (hopefully final) evaluation while

Re: 'core-updates' status

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 11:24:29PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: > Hello! > > 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 and i686. There are a > few failing packages still, but nothing too scary. Please try to fix > some if you can! > >

Re: 'core-updates' status

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017 23:24:29 +0200 Marius Bakke wrote: > 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 and i686. There are a > few failing packages still, but nothing too scary. Please try to fix > some if you can! > >

Re: 'core-updates' status

Ben Woodcroft writes: > I went to look at blast+ on armhf, and came across this: > > /tmp/guix-build-blast+-2.6.0.drv-0/ncbi-blast-2.6.0+-src/c++/include/corelib/ncbistl.hpp:73:23: > fatal error: error writing to > /tmp/guix-build-blast+-2.6.0.drv-0/ccWOjvYh.s: No space

Re: 'core-updates' status

Hi Marius, On 19/08/17 07:24, Marius Bakke wrote: Hello! 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 and i686. There are a few failing packages still, but nothing too scary. Please try to fix some if you can! I went to look at blast+ on armhf, and came across this:

'core-updates' status

Hello! 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 and i686. There are a few failing packages still, but nothing too scary. Please try to fix some if you can! https://hydra.gnu.org/eval/109753?full=1=master#tabs-now-fail Most of the "dependency failed" armhf packages are because Hydra