***Server sets mode: +cnt
***ChanServ sets mode: +o janneke
***ChanServ sets mode: +o rekado
<rekado>woah, this channel looks very different from the last time I checked in <rekado>stikonas: I finally have enough time to simplify the Java bootstrap in Guix. I built ecj 4 and got 21 minutes into the build of icedtea 2 (skipping icedtea 1 entirely), but rmic fails to build sun.jvm.hotspot.debugger.remote.RemoteDebuggerServer <rekado>it fails with “java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: MALFORMED” in java.util.zip.ZipCoder.toString(ZipCoder.java:58) <stikonas>rekado: hmm, I don't think I saw something like this. And I've been looking at openjdk bootstrap recently <rekado>I haven’t really looked much into this. Maybe I’m just doing something silly without noticing it. <stikonas>(since I had to update my Gentoo ebuilds to GCC 10) <rekado>okay, guess I’ll just have to debug then :) <rekado>(I don’t even know what rmic does and I haven’t felt motivated to look it up) <stikonas>looks like it is rmi compiler, but that still does not tell me anything useful <stikonas>probably because I don't know that much java <rekado>the code tells me that the error is merely a decoding error <rekado>javac (the wrapped ecj 4) works just fine; enough to build the whole bootstrap JDK <rekado>so perhaps it’s some inane locale / encoding problem on an input file. <stikonas>perhaps some patch that I'm applying workarounds that... <rekado>could also be that the Guix build environment is just a tad too strict <rekado>but it’s good to know that you didn’t encounter this <stikonas>I did encounter some issues with hotspot checksums <rekado>(I’m still bad at reading ebuilds, but I’m getting better :)) <stikonas>so I had to disable that check completely <stikonas>maybe even newer GCC will break things in Guix too... <stikonas>but things don't break that much in Guix due to ability to use older versions of some tools <rekado>stikonas: we’re building with GCC 10 <stikonas>so if that error comes back later in Guix <stikonas>the way to solve it is to completely disable checksum <stikonas>rekado: btw, do you have your wip changes pushed somewhere? <stikonas>in case I find some time to try to reproduce it <gbrlwck>muurkha: thanks for acknowledging wrongdoing. your excuses seem flawed, though. you say you're sorry about feeding the discussion off-topic, only minutes after elaborating again (!) on what you seem to believe /how i think/. this is incredibly weird and does not make me feel invited to express myself. <gbrlwck>i doubt there is actual interest in how to categorize my Weltanschauung -- so why is this even an issue? i thought we're here to solve the bootstrapping problem and bootstrappability issues. <gbrlwck>i usually enjoy discussing politics or philosophy. i feel like you've been ignoring what i say (about my own positions and /how i think/). you could have asked, nicely, you could have commented in a respectful manner, but all this? this made the usual joy vanish rather quickly. <gbrlwck>i suggest we all (re-)read the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines. it's a really good read -- and i hope this clarifies further what went wrong here and how we will be able to interact in a peaceful manner in the future <rekado>if I may suggest something: long discussions of Marxism, capitalism, etc are off-topic for this channel. <rekado>also: harassing people here is not acceptable <rekado>I’m not pointing fingers at anyone <rekado>in part because my webcam is disabled. <rekado>but really: let’s please keep this channel focused on bootstrapping. Not bootstrapping society but programs. <muurkha>it is possible for people with very different points of view to collaborate productively <muurkha>we don't have to resolve our differing viewpoints on the nature of truth in order to write software <rekado>stikonas: I haven’t pushed any WIP yet, but I’ll do that soon after cleaning up my work some more. <muurkha>I do think that productive collaboration requires that people engage in discussion in a productive way, though, even if that isn't their thing <stikonas>I wasn't participating in the previous discussion, but it seems to me that everybody would benefit if we try to keep discussions slightly more on-topic. <stikonas>i.e. try to discuss things that are more common to everybody here <stikonas>oh and I see rekado already mentioned that <muurkha>and, in particular in scientific and engineering work, that they at least pretend that there is a difference between telling the truth and telling lies that goes beyond whether what they say is generally believed ("established between people, within communities") <muurkha>I mean it's okay if you believe that truth doesn't exist outside a social context, or that heretics who reject Christ should be killed, as long as you don't act on that belief <muurkha>for example, if I say "tinycc compiled with this new version of mescc is dumping core on risc-v," I could of course be wrong about it, or describing an incomplete picture (is my kernel buggy? perhaps my RAM?) but I want to be engaging in productive discussion about the things that objectively happen in the real world in order to understand *the* truth about what's happening, an endeavor which in <muurkha>my view presupposes that *the* truth exists <rekado>let’s please not continue this meta discussion here.