On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 07:43:18AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 22:49 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 08:20:53PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Thu, 2014-05-15 at 02:10 +0100, Wookey wrote: > > > > Also if anyone has expertise in language porting we'd like to hear > > > > from you. Below is the list of languages we believe still need porting > > > > to arm64: > > > > > > Ruby wasn't on the list, is that under control? > > > > > > Ruby seems to be at the bottom of the build-dep chain for the kernel > > > (linux->patchutils->rpm->libsemanage->ruby). > > > > The code is ported, but starting at 1.9 Ruby needs an existing Ruby > > interpreter to build. Ruby 1.8 needs only gcc-4.6 ... which needs > > patchutils. So we got ourselves a loop there. > > FWIW I managed to build ruby1.8 with gcc-4.9 using the patch below. I > don't know if it works though.
Making it build is the easy part. :) I had to force gcc-4.6 some time ago because building with gcc-4.7 (the default at the time IIRC) caused segmentation faults. Looking at newer comments at the corresponding bug logs (#674541) there are suggestions about gcc flags that fix the issue, so I tried them here and it seems to work, at least as far as being usable to bootstrap ruby2.1. I have uploaded that now, let's see what happens. -- Antonio Terceiro <terce...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
