hvadehra
hvadehra
Finally got around to looking at this, sorry for the delay. https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/pull/21559 might be simpler, but in it's current state seems like the worse option to me. At the very...
Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was actually suggesting doing both. I think (a) is especially important if the exception(s) we choose to ignore with (b) are more general than we'd...
Considering the failure is in the linker, probably arch related. @seaurching is there an easy way for me to try and repro this on a mips64 system?
@comius I presume this is no longer necessary?
CI failures are same as at HEAD.
FYI, the missing info was deliberately removed. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/10isTEK5W9iCPp4BIyGBrLY5iti3Waaam6EeGVSjq3r8/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.fs8cvfw0s0um @comius can hopefully provide more on the rationale.
This looks like https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/discussions/21769 and will possibly be fixed by https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_java/pull/182. Could you try building by overriding rules_java to the state of that PR?
> However I am having some trouble applying this change: upgrading to rules_java v8 will break our existing protobuf settings - What is your Bazel version? - Are you using...
> I tried a brief attempt to update to 8.8.0 but hit the issue similar to https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_java/issues/256 (probably because we aren't fully migrated from WORKSPACE yet) The latest rules_java releases...