GNU bug report logs - #43232
jack2 fails to build on aarch64

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Mike Rosset <mike.rosset <at> gmail.com>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
Cc: Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il>, 43232 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#43232: [PATCH] gnu: jack-2: Update to 1.9.14.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:07:50 -0700

Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org> writes:

> Efraim Flashner <efraim <at> flashner.co.il> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 09:25:25PM -0700, Mike Rosset wrote:
>>> * gnu/packages/audio.scm (jack-2): Update to 1.9.14.
>>> [arguments]: new 'declare-for-int phase after unpack that declares 'i in the
>>> for initialize statement.  Add -lstdc++ to LDFLAGS 'set-linkflags phase
>>> ensures -lstdc++ is at the tail.
> [...]
>>> @@ -2047,8 +2047,18 @@ synchronous execution of all clients, and low latency operation.")
>>>                             "--alsa")
>>>         #:phases
>>>         (modify-phases %standard-phases
>>> +         (add-after 'unpack 'declare-for-int
>>> +           (lambda _
>>> +             ;; Declare the for loop i incrementer.
>>> +             (substitute* "dbus/sigsegv.c"
>>> +               (("for\\(i = 0") "for(int i = 0"))
>>> +             #t))
>>
>> Any chance of an upstream bug number or something for this? It seems
>> like the type of thing that might be put into a snippet.
>
> I agree that somehow this fix should be in the 'origin', so that this
> fix will be in the output of "guix build --source".  However, I'd go
> further and suggest that it should be a patch instead of a call to
> 'substitute*'.
>
> Although patches are larger and a bit more work to create, they are far
> more robust.  When this bug is eventually fixed upstream, a patch to fix
> it will begin raising an error, alerting us that it's time to remove it.
>
> In contrast, a call to 'substitute*' will silently start doing nothing,
> and may easily be forgotten.  To make matters worse, a future version of
> jack-2 might add another 'for' loop in that file, matching the same
> pattern but where it is important that 'i' _not_ be initialized to 0.
> This 'substitute*' call, likely vestigial by that time but long since
> forgotten, could start silently introducing a new bug.
>
> What do you think?
>
>       Thanks,
>         Mark

Hello Mark,

 Turns out version 1.9.14 is not effected by this. So the version bump
is good enough. I resubmitted a first in series with just the version
bump and linker change. Which Andreas has merged into master.

Mike

Previous Next

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