From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Fri Oct 19 20:18:48 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D20FE4ACE; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 20:18:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andreast@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.imp.ch (smtp.imp.ch [IPv6:2001:4060:1:1001::13:196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACC088BDFF; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 20:18:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from andreast@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.225.14] (dhclient-91-190-10-49.flashcable.ch [91.190.10.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgznet.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51EEFC147B; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:18:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r339350 - head/contrib/elftoolchain/elfcopy To: Gerald Pfeifer , Ed Maste Cc: Antoine Brodin , src-committers , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org References: <201810132126.w9DLQ73C022496@repo.freebsd.org> From: Andreas Tobler Message-ID: <5fc97978-c59a-168b-b82b-aff189bb022a@FreeBSD.org> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 22:18:36 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: de-CH Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: Asterix Submit on 127.0.1.1 X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 20:18:48 -0000 On 19.10.18 15:54, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Ed Maste wrote: >> I think this is probably the right approach, although I also have an >> ELF Tool Chain fix in D17596 which is waiting on the code freeze to >> end. > > I'm a little confused: This was broken most recently (as the mail > bomb that my inbox received from the pkg cluster and others indicates), > so at this point in the release cycle shouldn't > (a) the change causing all this be reverted, *or* > (b) a follow-up patch committed immediately, > whatever looks less risky? > Good to know, then I can stop investigating the bootstrap comparison failures. Thanks, Andreas