| 1 |
On Mon, 9 Dec 2013, Chema Alonso wrote: |
| 2 |
> BTW sbcl-1.1.14 is out there, I've tested it on amd64 using the ebuild |
| 3 |
> for 1.1.12 and it builds and runs fine. Is it ok to push it to the tree? |
| 4 |
Thanks, I've committed it. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> WRT bugs 485630 [1] and 485632 [2], I've tested the last vesions of |
| 7 |
> sbcl and asdf, particularly: |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> dev-lisp/sbcl-1.1.12 |
| 10 |
> dev-lisp/asdf-3.0.2.4 |
| 11 |
> dev-lisp/uiop-3.0.2.4 |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> They build and run with no problesms on amd64. All tests pass. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> As an amd64 arch tester is ok for me to stabilize them. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Any comments/problems? |
| 18 |
I think it's OK to stabilize it on amd64. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The bug #486552 is a major problem: nobody can compile any version of sbcl |
| 21 |
on x86, starting from some moment between May and August 2013, due to some |
| 22 |
change in something completely unrelated to sbcl. So, on x86 it definitely |
| 23 |
should not be stabilized. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
By the way, the original reporter of this bug had this problem on an amd64 |
| 26 |
system; only after he fully updated it to ~amd64, the problem had |
| 27 |
disappeared. I suppose you have tested on a stable amd64, right? So, it |
| 28 |
seems that the problem disappeared, and stabilizing on amd64 is OK. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Andrey |
Archives