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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#29406: closed ([PATCH core-updates]: Add selected upstream
 fixes for glibc 2.26.)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 16:04:01 +0000

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

Your message dated Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:03:21 +0100
with message-id <87r2sixueu.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: [bug#29406] [PATCH core-updates]: Add selected upstream fixes for glibc 2.26.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #29406,
regarding [PATCH core-updates]: Add selected upstream fixes for glibc 2.26.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
29406: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=29406
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH core-updates]: Add selected upstream fixes for glibc 2.26.
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 22:28:49 +0100

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

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?

[0] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/release/2.26/master

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

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

[Message part 6 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Cc: 29406-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Subject: Re: [bug#29406] [PATCH core-updates]: Add selected upstream fixes for
 glibc 2.26.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 17:03:21 +0100

Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> skribis:
>>
>>> From a5b022a355a0babdc4809f39f94b6662ea7789d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
>>> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 19:17:28 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: glibc: Update to 2.26-91-gaaa2eb83b8.
>>>
>>> * gnu/packages/base.scm (glibc/linux): Update to 2.26-91-gaaa2eb83b8.
>>> [source](uri): Download from alpha.gnu.org.
>>> [source](patches): Remove glibc-CVE-2017-15670-15671.patch.
>>> ---
>>>  gnu/packages/base.scm | 17 ++++++++++++-----
>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/base.scm b/gnu/packages/base.scm
>>> index a6663c5cf..20d5fa72b 100644
>>> --- a/gnu/packages/base.scm
>>> +++ b/gnu/packages/base.scm
>>> @@ -515,14 +515,22 @@ store.")
>>>  (define-public glibc/linux
>>>    (package
>>>     (name "glibc")
>>> -   (version "2.26")
>>> +   ;; Glibc has stable branches that continuously pick fixes for each supported
>>> +   ;; release.  Unfortunately they do not do point-releases, so we are stuck
>>> +   ;; with copying almost all patches, or use a snapshot of the release branch.
>>> +   ;;
>>> +   ;; This version number corresponds to the output of `git describe` and the
>>> +   ;; archive can be generated by checking out the commit ID and run:
>>> +   ;; git archive --prefix=$(git describe)/ HEAD | xz -9 > $(git describe).tar.xz
>>> +   ;; See <https://bugs.gnu.org/29406> for details.
>>> +   (version "2.26-91-gaaa2eb83b8")
>>>     (source (origin
>>>              (method url-fetch)
>>> -            (uri (string-append "mirror://gnu/glibc/glibc-"
>>> -                                version ".tar.xz"))
>>> +            (uri (string-append "https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/mirror/"
>>> +                                "glibc-" version ".tar.xz"))
>>>              (sha256
>>>               (base32
>>> -              "1ggnj1hzjym7sn93rbwydcqd562q73lsb7g7kd199g6j9j9hlkp5"))
>>> +              "0867nxcv3n48iq3b5f1hca7cyx8pzjva67rxyslf9l595xd934kx"))
>>
>> I’ve built the tarball locally with the command above but the hash I get is:
>>
>>   1zwz6d0x3ndd0hgqp17fx71miyjvn4dgkl1nzhaz3mbcqxzrprhk
>
> Gah.  I used "xz --threads=0" initially and didn't expect it to change
> the outcome.
>
> I can reproduce the above hash by running the same command:
>
> $ git archive --prefix=$(git describe)/ HEAD | xz -9 > $(git describe)-nothreads.tar.xz
> $ guix hash glibc-2.26-91-gaaa2eb83b8-nothreads.tar.xz
> 1zwz6d0x3ndd0hgqp17fx71miyjvn4dgkl1nzhaz3mbcqxzrprhk 
>
> Let's stick with the "nothreads" variant for compatibility.

OK, it’s now available at
<https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/guix/mirror/glibc-2.26-91-gaaa2eb83b8.tar.xz>.

Thank you!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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