From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Sep 29 17:00:10 2021 Received: (at 50878) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Sep 2021 21:00:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50456 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mVggT-00070z-P3 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:00:09 -0400 Received: from michel.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.137.88]:52368) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mVggR-0006zr-9Z for 50878@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 17:00:08 -0400 Received: from ptr-bvsjgyjmffd7q9timvx.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be ([IPv6:2a02:1811:8c09:9d00:aaf1:9810:a0b8:a55d]) by michel.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id zx052500a0mfAB406x05k5; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 23:00:06 +0200 Message-ID: <297b9f7f0924f14fa52dcd3689b233edd5d45275.camel@telenet.be> Subject: Re: [bug#50878] [PATCH] union: Resolve collisions by stable-sort'ing them. From: Maxime Devos To: Attila Lendvai Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 23:00:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: <9gdtvXBJqCfaLCQswTjsN95-pmgfMzqlELlgJEH0o2n_WyWE8LTncnQCIMTEnjFiKO1gKSBMukitcmbQv5FNWRVUc6PLbLBIdQDype7SDLk=@lendvai.name> References: <20210928214044.437-1-attila@lendvai.name> <530e2ad39a865b57f4a0049e862af0d23ac4c592.camel@telenet.be> <9gdtvXBJqCfaLCQswTjsN95-pmgfMzqlELlgJEH0o2n_WyWE8LTncnQCIMTEnjFiKO1gKSBMukitcmbQv5FNWRVUc6PLbLBIdQDype7SDLk=@lendvai.name> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-hwUjvhdmv8rR/eNInDOG" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telenet.be; s=r21; t=1632949206; bh=M6OJBvW0xbXePLTDrNnffmcOK4VKmn9rSfNDYSTPIiA=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=KZ/QgWL72Dp4RepKBkdelizYAQClKZBEBYxmR0w1yW2RmqJ5k353ZFQheeiGGs54Q jPpkZ71YJbkZ+Oxp7sY+hlGNYI8z+fVPh+CoMP/x7bFJYBxRe0/O0F7U22iqT57/r0 sk83qTKAeHf/hS9KqL2VnCsxr8uCBw/zZIlyBeAVGFp344qt5zAFKuEHYWQTvypi8Z dMAdsfdPNSaqAEdFNk7k/ihpsbE21YUqW1LqI7m6w93sLUQmeuY2aEavlEJL1a7V+u JL8kr8kvqlHllyC9YM1SJaQZcDev9oL7YNdhAHxhAR+G8T0hvoLb9dI0qOgnmi8k30 Ut7hlRRoiu7FA== X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 50878 Cc: 50878@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) --=-hwUjvhdmv8rR/eNInDOG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Attila Lendvai schreef op wo 29-09-2021 om 16:03 [+0000]: > > SRFI-43 is in Guile since Guile 2.0.10, according to Guile's NEWS. > > The bootstrap guile is older: > >=20 > > $(guix build -e '(@@ (gnu packages bootstrap) %bootstrap-guile)')/bin/g= uile --version > >=20 > > guile (GNU Guile) 2.0.9 >=20 > thank you for the analysis! >=20 > is it easy and desirable to upgrade it to 2.0.10 or newer? It's possible by modifying 'bootstrap-guile-url-path' and 'bootstrap-guile-hash'. Apparently, some architectures already use a newer guile. E.g., aarch64 has 2.0.14. However, this probably would entail a world-rebuild I think, so this probably needs to be done on core-updates. Why limit to guile 2.0.10, why not go for guile 3.0.7 instead? I don't kow how one would go about updating the bootstrap binaries though. Anyway, there have been quite a few bug fixes and new features since 2.0.9, and updating to guile 3.0.? would allow dropping some compatibility code in various guix/build/, so I wouldn't be opposed to such a change. Greetings, Maxime --=-hwUjvhdmv8rR/eNInDOG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iI0EABYKADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYVTT1RccbWF4aW1lZGV2 b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7pDQAQCiV7aq9RbNZ050FH3VqRfGp2WO PBE/9H9es+hsEGXYmAD+Kz7uoug5EwS84emjdNlrbiS1ePi7/engCydav8gNEg4= =S5ee -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-hwUjvhdmv8rR/eNInDOG--