From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-lisp+bounces-248-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B318213827E for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 10394E09C1; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:11:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from inpbox.inp.nsk.su (inpbox.inp.nsk.su [84.237.43.120]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 765A8E09C1 for <gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:11:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from star.inp.nsk.su ([192.168.167.122]) by inpbox.inp.nsk.su with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <grozin@gentoo.org>) id 1Vq6EU-0000DX-Hk for gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:11:06 +0700 Received: from star.inp.nsk.su (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by star.inp.nsk.su (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rB9JB6bS016390 for <gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:11:06 +0700 Received: from localhost (grozin@localhost) by star.inp.nsk.su (8.14.7/8.14.6/Submit) with ESMTP id rB9JB6PM016387 for <gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:11:06 +0700 X-Authentication-Warning: star.inp.nsk.su: grozin owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 02:11:05 +0700 (NOVT) From: grozin@gentoo.org X-X-Sender: grozin@star.inp.nsk.su To: Gentoo Lisp <gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-lisp] Stabilization of last versions of sbcl and asdf on amd64 In-Reply-To: <20131209153357.GA29832@filladhoo> Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1312100159580.15577@star.inp.nsk.su> References: <20131209153357.GA29832@filladhoo> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-lisp+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-lisp+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-lisp+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Lisp mail <gentoo-lisp.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-lisp@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Archives-Salt: a34f2d75-31ec-4395-958a-be178f79f701 X-Archives-Hash: 041282aecf5809b3157004e05b103fbb 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. > 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. The bug #486552 is a major problem: nobody can compile any version of sbcl on x86, starting from some moment between May and August 2013, due to some change in something completely unrelated to sbcl. So, on x86 it definitely should not be stabilized. By the way, the original reporter of this bug had this problem on an amd64 system; only after he fully updated it to ~amd64, the problem had disappeared. I suppose you have tested on a stable amd64, right? So, it seems that the problem disappeared, and stabilizing on amd64 is OK. Andrey