[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] dev-lisp/clozurtecl and the 17.0 profile, was: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: [gentoo-dev
From:       Ulrich Mueller <ulm () gentoo ! org>
Date:       2018-12-04 11:59:51
Message-ID: w6gtvjt8pu0.fsf () kph ! uni-mainz ! de
[Download RAW message or body]


>>>>> On Mon, 03 Dec 2018, grozin  wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, Michał Górny wrote:

>> I think that if there's one package that doesn't work with profiles
>> (compared to the very large number of packages which just work fine),
>> it's not the profiles but the package being broken (read: doing silly
>> assumptions).  Therefore, it's not 17.0 profiles being the problem
>> but the package in question.
>> 
>> Claiming that people doing any change to Gentoo are required to fix
>> all the problematic packages is just silly.  This is basically saying
>> that it's fine to add bad quality packages and then demand others to
>> fix them for you.  People who worked on the profile can fix bugs in
>> the profile.  Don't expect them to pursue whatever broken packages
>> you like just because they happened to change the fragile conditions
>> under which they worked.

Oh, come on. The 17.0 profiles introduced rather daring compiler and
linker options, and clozurecl is not the only package broken by them.
Most of the Lisp packages (including Emacs) are affected, because their
dumping of the executable is incompatible with PIE. That doesn't make
them "bad quality packages". It simply means that the PIE flags hadn't
previously been encountered upstream, or not reported to them.

> See bug #672454.

> clozurecl compiles and works fine with the upstream-provided
> compilation flags. So, we cannot ask the upstream to solve our
> problems for us.

Still, you could report it upstream, maybe with a patch for their build
system?

Ulrich

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]