On Mon, 2020-07-27 at 13:32 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 11:03:58PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > On Sun, 2020-07-26 at 09:39 -0600, Jerry James wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 6:41 PM Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 04:55:31PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > What would help would be if someone could untag that version of > > > > > binutils so that > > > > > it doesn't show up in the buildroots anymore. It's clearly fubar'd. > > > > > > > > Done. > > > > > > Hmmmm. Yet my most recent build attempt, just now, failed with a > > > linker segfault on all arches: > > > > > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1546752 > > > > > > This is with: > > > annobin-9.24.2-fc33 > > > binutils-2.35-1.fc33 > > > gcc-10.2.1-1.fc33 > > > glibc-2.31.9000-21.fc33 > > As Kevin mentioned in a followup, he's untagged the 2.35 build so this > > should be > > working again. > > > > I think I see the root cause in the linker now. It's probably an uncommon > > scenario, but I doubt binutils is the only affected package. > > > > The even better news is I think we can go ahead and green light the mass > > rebuild > > for Monday. Two reasons. One, I expect the preconditions necessary to > > trip the > > bug to be uncommon. Two, I think we can reliably detect a broken binary by > > the > > existence of absolute symbols in the dynamic symbol table. > > > > The latter in particular means we've got a method where we can find affected > > packages while Nick and I iterate on the linker fix. So even if the bug > > leaks > > into packages, we can find them and do targeted rebuilds. > > The problem with that is that if broken builds land in the buildroot of > other packages, those dependent packages might either a) fail to build, > b) be built incorrectly, for example because feature detection fails. > Situation a) happens in mass rebuilds quite a lot anyway, so it's not > a big issue, since the build would just be repeated. But b) is more serious. > Even if you detect that a package was faulty and needs to be rebuilt, > we might have to also rebuild all packages using that faulty package > as a build dependency, recursively. This quickly becomes messy :( I'm aware of that potential. I think the odds of stumbling into this are small.
jeff _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
