On 09:22 Wed 23 Jun , David Holmes wrote: > On 23/06/2021 5:38 am, Xin Liu wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2021 17:20:14 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@openjdk.org> > > wrote: > > > >> It seems Ubuntu had bumped the version for GCC, so GHA started to fail > >> with e.g.: > >> > >> > >> The following packages have unmet dependencies: > >> g++-10-s390x-linux-gnu : Depends: gcc-10-s390x-linux-gnu-base (= > >> 10.2.0-5ubuntu1~20.04cross1) but 10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04cross1 is to be > >> installed > >> gcc-10-s390x-linux-gnu : Depends: cpp-10-s390x-linux-gnu (= > >> 10.2.0-5ubuntu1~20.04cross1) but 10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04cross1 is to be > >> installed > >> Depends: gcc-10-s390x-linux-gnu-base (= > >> 10.2.0-5ubuntu1~20.04cross1) but 10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04cross1 is to be > >> installed > >> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. > >> Error: Process completed with exit code 100. > >> > >> > >> I believe we should just update to `10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04`. > >> > >> Additional testing: > >> - [x] GitHub Actions, package installation steps work > >> - [ ] GitHub Actions, the builds complete > > > > .github/workflows/submit.yml line 175: > > > >> 173: run: | > >> 174: sudo apt-get update > >> 175: sudo apt-get install gcc-10=10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04 > >> g++-10=10.3.0-1ubuntu1~20.04 libxrandr-dev libxtst-dev libcups2-dev > >> libasound2-dev > > > > One dummy question: > > Why do we need to specify the real package name here? > > If we install gcc-10, I think apt system will pick up the latest gcc-10 for > > us. > > IIRC the intent is to keep control over the gcc version and not randomly > update whenever the distro updates. Upgrading compiler versions for the > OpenJDK is actually a very involved process when done properly and we > often find code changes need to be made, or warnings adjusted, when a > new version of the compiler is to be used. This approach forces us to > check the new version is okay before switching over to it. At least that > is the theory. :) > > Cheers, > David > > > > > ------------- > > > > PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk17/pull/120 > > >
I'm in complete agreement with you as regards major versions of GCC. Fedora's eager adoption of them means we often encounter these early. JDK-8282231 is just the latest example from the introduction of GCC 12. However, the GHA workflow in OpenJDK doesn't just depend on a major version of GCC - which is actually contained in the Ubuntu package name of gcc-9 or gcc-10 itself - but the full revision number, even down to local packaging changes. I believe this is overkill and leads to valuable time being wasted on issues like JDK-8283778 where the GCC version itself didn't even change at all, just the Ubuntu version suffix. Having just encountered this with 8u, I've filed JDK-8284772 there to just use the package name, which includes the major GCC version. That's already how it is depending on the x86_32 GCC, which hasn't suffered broken dependencies in the same way as x86_64. I have yet to see an issue be specific to a minor GCC version bump, whereas the current setup is pretty much guaranteed to mean further fixes to the GitHub workflow every time the Ubuntu packager produces a new build. I'm happy to submit the change for other JDK versions if there is interest, but I at least don't want to be encountering this in maintaining 8u (and certainly not having to add fixes to a release branch in rampdown, as happened recently with 11u) Thanks, -- Andrew :) Pronouns: he / him or they / them Senior Free Java Software Engineer OpenJDK Package Owner Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) PGP Key: ed25519/0xCFDA0F9B35964222 (hkp://keys.gnupg.net) Fingerprint = 5132 579D D154 0ED2 3E04 C5A0 CFDA 0F9B 3596 4222
