GNU bug report logs - #29406
[PATCH core-updates]: Add selected upstream fixes for glibc 2.26.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 29406 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 29406 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#29406] [PATCH core-updates]: Add selected upstream fixes for
 glibc 2.26.
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 02:12:09 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:28:49PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote:
>> Hello!
>> 
>> I discovered that 'icu4c' failed to build for x86_64 on 'core-updates'.
>> After some investigation, it turns out to be a problem with <math.h> in
>> C++ mode, due to its usage of C-only builtins (in the 2.26 release).
>> 
>> Here are the relevant bug reports I've found so far by digging through
>> the "release/2.26/master" branch, aka "2.26 stable"[0]:
>> 
>> <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21930>
>> <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22235>
>> <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22146>
>> <https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22296>
>> 
>> The attached patch includes the fixes from those bugs, as well as a
>> couple of others that looked important.  However it's still a very small
>> subset of the 2.26 post-release fixes.
>> 
>> I've read through _most_ of the commits and around half of them look
>> important enough to pick "unconditionally".  The other half I mainly
>> lack the context or skills to assess.
>> 
>> So I wonder if we should simply pick everything from this branch,
>> instead of only the few that fixes immediately visible problems.
>> Thoughts?
>
> Based on this discussion [0], I think we should take the whole branch.
> It sounds like commits on the release branches are considered important
> bug fixes and "stable".

I agree.

> There was talk of a mid-October 2.26.1 release, but that didn't happen,
> as we know.
>
> Are you able to prepare a patch, Marius? If not, I can do it later
> tonight.

I ran this command from a glibc git checkout:

  $ git format-patch -p --minimal --no-signature -o ~/guix/gnu/packages/patches/ \
    glibc-2.26..origin/release/2.26/master

Afterwards, in ~/guix/gnu/packages/patches:

  $ rename 's/^(\d{4})-.*\.patch/glibc-2-26-$1.patch/' 00*.patch

And adjusted gnu/local.mk and glibc source accordingly.

The patch is ~30k lines.  WDYT?

[0001-gnu-glibc-Add-fixes-from-upstream-2.26-stable-branch.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.