From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CC3C13827E for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:05:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 83329E0AD6; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from nimiux.org (nimiux.org [176.31.114.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3AA7E0AD6 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:04:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bolita.nimiux.org (unknown [89.7.128.183]) by nimiux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 22A7620050 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 21:04:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 21:05:51 +0100 From: Chema Alonso To: gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-lisp] Stabilization of last versions of sbcl and asdf on amd64 Message-ID: <20131211200551.GA6537@filladhoo> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org References: <20131209153357.GA29832@filladhoo> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Lisp mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: gentoo.org User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 7b74e252-942c-402c-8051-4f0d664a3d6d X-Archives-Hash: 5bfe9a5815ef397b7029e30f33ea92c1 --oyUTqETQ0mS9luUI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 02:11:05AM +0700, grozin@gentoo.org wrote: > On Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Chema Alonso wrote: > > BTW sbcl-1.1.14 is out there, I've tested it on amd64 using the ebuild > > for 1.1.12 and it builds and runs fine. Is it ok to push it to the tree? > Thanks, I've committed it. >=20 > > WRT bugs 485630 [1] and 485632 [2], I've tested the last vesions of > > sbcl and asdf, particularly: > > > > dev-lisp/sbcl-1.1.12 > > dev-lisp/asdf-3.0.2.4 > > dev-lisp/uiop-3.0.2.4 > > > > They build and run with no problesms on amd64. All tests pass. > > > > As an amd64 arch tester is ok for me to stabilize them. > > > > Any comments/problems? > I think it's OK to stabilize it on amd64. >=20 > The bug #486552 is a major problem: nobody can compile any version of sbc= l=20 > on x86, starting from some moment between May and August 2013, due to som= e=20 > change in something completely unrelated to sbcl. So, on x86 it definitel= y=20 > should not be stabilized. >=20 > By the way, the original reporter of this bug had this problem on an amd6= 4=20 > system; only after he fully updated it to ~amd64, the problem had=20 > disappeared. I suppose you have tested on a stable amd64, right? So, it= =20 > seems that the problem disappeared, and stabilizing on amd64 is OK. >=20 > Andrey >=20 Hi, There are problems [1] with the stabilization of =3Ddev-lisp/asdf-3.0.2.4 on amd64. Apparently =3Ddev-lisp/asdf-3.0.2.4 and =3Ddev-lisp/gentoo-init-0.1 can't be installed at the same time due to asdf-3.0.2.4 dependencies: DEPEND=3D"!dev-lisp/cl-${PN} !dev-lisp/asdf-binary-locations !dev-lisp/gentoo-init !