[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#43232: [PATCH] gnu: jack-2: Update to 1.9.14.

From: Mike Rosset
Subject: bug#43232: [PATCH] gnu: jack-2: Update to 1.9.14.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:07:50 -0700
User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.1

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

> Efraim Flashner <efraim@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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]