Dne 22. 09. 22 v 23:36 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 12:41 PM Pavel Valena <[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 6:42 PM Vít Ondruch <[email protected]> wrote: Dne 19. 09. 22 v 18:22 Jun Aruga (he / him) napsal(a): > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 7:03 PM Vít Ondruch <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> I think it is the highest time to kick of the Ruby 3.2 thread. So here >> we go. I have just pushed the first update to private-ruby-3.2 branch >> [1] and here is the scratch build: >> >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92083633 >> >> There is nothing what would stand out. >> >> Nevertheless, I was testing the `--enable-mkmf-verbose` configure option >> submitted upstream by @jaruga (thx a bunch) with the ByeBug example just >> to find out that ByeBug is broken due to some upstream changes [3]. So >> just early heads up that there will be needed some changes for Ruby 3.2. >> >> As always, feedback is appreciate via regular channels. Hi! Thanks for the build. I have tried to rebuild it in COPR, but I'm getting an error: ``` 1) Process.clock_gettime supports the platform clocks mentioned in the documentation CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM ERROR Errno::EINVAL: Invalid argument - clock_gettime /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:143:in `clock_gettime' /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:143:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:4:in `<top (required)>' 2) Process.clock_gettime supports the platform clocks mentioned in the documentation CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM ERROR Errno::EINVAL: Invalid argument - clock_gettime /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:148:in `clock_gettime' /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:148:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' /builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:4:in `<top (required)>' ``` Builds are available: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/builds/ Once this succeeds I plan to rebuild all rubygems we have in Fedora in the rubygems-testing COPR repository. Pavel- subsequent build succeeded, at least on rawhide + centos-stream-8 ... both x86_64
Hm the only successful build for fedora-rawhide-x86_64 is this: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/build/4868339/And the difference is in kernel. This successful build was built on `kernel version == 5.14.10-300.fc35.x86_64`. The failed attempts were using `kernel version == 5.17.7-200.fc35.x86_64`. And the original Koji build was build using `kernel version == 5.18.17-200.fc36.x86_64`. Not sure what should be the takeaway now. But maybe the `5.17.7-200.fc35.x86_64` kernel has some bug? It seems that the implementation as well as the specs are properly conditioned:
https://github.com/ruby/spec/blob/8d26c0c202d3c098478fe17067a12b803504187e/core/process/fixtures/clocks.rb#L11 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/a78c733cc32cc3da3796cbf65da21cdd40c63230/process.c#L9143-L9146 Or the kernel-headers used during build might be broken ... Of course this might be something completely different :) Vít
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
