[arch-dev-public] core build report - gcc-4.8 toolchain
Here are the current build failures in [core] when using the gcc-4.8 toolchain Old: FAIL: curl FAIL: isdn4k-utils FAIL: libtirpc FAIL: net-tools FAIL: ppl New: FAIL: iproute2 lnstat.c: In function 'build_hdr_string': lnstat.c:169:30: error: argument to 'sizeof' in 'memset' call is the same expression as the destination; did you mean to provide an explicit length? [-Werror=sizeof-pointer-memaccess] memset(th.hdr[i], 0, sizeof(th.hdr[i])); ^ cc1: all warnings being treated as errors FAIL: libcap library gets installed to /usr/lib64 - ??? FAIL: lilo gcc -E -C -traditional -DLILO_ASM -o common.s common.h as86 -0 -a -w -l first.lis -o first.o first.s a0006 This file is part of the GNU C Library. * opcode expected...^ * illegal label.^ ...
Re: [arch-dev-public] core build report - gcc-4.8 toolchain
On 31/03/13 13:08, Allan McRae wrote: FAIL: libcap library gets installed to /usr/lib64 - ??? Nothing to to with the toolchain - it uses: lib=$(shell ldd /usr/bin/ld|fgrep ld-linux|cut -d/ -f2) to find the lib directory. Now the linkers shows as /lib64/ld-linux...
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report
Am 17.03.2013 11:32, schrieb Pierre Schmitz: Would it be reasonable to add systemd to base-devel I don't see how systemd is required for building packages, unless you link to libsystemd-*. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report
Am 13.03.2013 13:22, schrieb Allan McRae: Hi, This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go! Would it be reasonable to add systemd to base-devel or should we rather add systemd as a dep to a bunch of packages? I see packages calling tmpfiles etc. on install so we'll have runtime deps and not just makedepends. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report
Am 17.03.2013 11:32, schrieb Pierre Schmitz: Am 13.03.2013 13:22, schrieb Allan McRae: Hi, This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go! Would it be reasonable to add systemd to base-devel or should we rather add systemd as a dep to a bunch of packages? I see packages calling tmpfiles etc. on install so we'll have runtime deps and not just makedepends. Here is a list of packages that need to have the systemd dep added (if it not already has): libvirt ndisc6 murmur wesnoth lightdm openntpd picocom percona-server minidlna proftpd bitlbee pgbouncer subversion postgresql mysql mpd php fetchmail lighttpd transmission apache samba lirc mariadb -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report
On 14 March 2013 03:35, Sébastien Luttringer se...@seblu.net wrote: On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Hi, This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go! As your TODO suggest everything needed to build chroot, can we add sudo too? I'm writing a patch for devtools which change the default install groups/packages from base base-devel sudo to base-devel sudol, and it seems more elegant to me to have only base-devel. sudo 1.8.6.p7-2 (currently in [testing]) is now part of the base-devel group.
[arch-dev-public] [core] build report
Hi,
This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo.
Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding
makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is
good to go!
Missing makedepends:
FAIL: dbus
- configure: error: Explicitly requested systemd support, but systemd
not found
FAIL: linux
- /build/PKGBUILD: line 148: depmod: command not found
FAIL: linux-lts
- /build/PKGBUILD: line 148: depmod: command not found
FAIL: lvm2
- configure: error: Package requirements (libudev = 143) were not met:
Other:
FAIL: curl
- C{PP,}FLAGS issue
FAIL: gcc
- texinfo update issue
FAIL: isdn4k-utils
- autotools update issue
FAIL: libtirpc
- autotools update issue
FAIL: net-tools
- strip.c:24:28: fatal error: linux/if_strip.h: No such file or directory
FAIL: ppl
- gmp update issue
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report
On 13/03/13 14:22, Allan McRae wrote: Hi, This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go! Not bad! A new x86_64 chroot now includes 84 packages (down from 131) and uses ~415 MiB of disk space (down from ~591 MiB). May I also suggest that we install namcap by default; currently it gets installed in the copied chroot at the end of each build.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report
On 14/03/13 00:27, Evangelos Foutras wrote: On 13/03/13 14:22, Allan McRae wrote: Hi, This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go! Not bad! A new x86_64 chroot now includes 84 packages (down from 131) and uses ~415 MiB of disk space (down from ~591 MiB). May I also suggest that we install namcap by default; currently it gets installed in the copied chroot at the end of each build. No - that brings in python. Allan
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote:
Hi,
This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo.
Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding
makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is
good to go!
Missing makedepends:
FAIL: dbus
- configure: error: Explicitly requested systemd support, but systemd
not found
FAIL: linux
- /build/PKGBUILD: line 148: depmod: command not found
FAIL: linux-lts
- /build/PKGBUILD: line 148: depmod: command not found
FAIL: lvm2
- configure: error: Package requirements (libudev = 143) were not met:
fixed in trunk
Other:
FAIL: curl
- C{PP,}FLAGS issue
FAIL: gcc
- texinfo update issue
FAIL: isdn4k-utils
- autotools update issue
FAIL: libtirpc
- autotools update issue
FAIL: net-tools
- strip.c:24:28: fatal error: linux/if_strip.h: No such file or directory
FAIL: ppl
- gmp update issue
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: Hi, This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go! As your TODO suggest everything needed to build chroot, can we add sudo too? I'm writing a patch for devtools which change the default install groups/packages from base base-devel sudo to base-devel sudol, and it seems more elegant to me to have only base-devel. Cheers, -- Sébastien Seblu Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report - 2012-03-10
Le 2012-03-10 19:10, Allan McRae a écrit : Checksum Mismatches: FAIL: keyutils keyutils-1.5.5.tar.bz2 ... FAILED I will take care of this. Stéphane
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report - 2012-03-10
On 03/11/2012 02:10 AM, Allan McRae wrote: FAIL: iproute2 ipl2tp.c:26:29: fatal error: netlink/netlink.h: No such file or directory fixed -- Ionuț signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report - 2012-03-10
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote: FAIL: pcmciautils curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Official upstream repo has not been restored after the kernel.org breakin. I'm looking into it. FAIL: usbutils curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Similarly, has not been reuploaded to k.o, but this one has a github repo: https://lwn.net/Articles/464178/. Cheers, Tom
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report - 2012-03-10
Am 12.03.2012 16:00, schrieb Tom Gundersen: On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote Similarly, has not been reuploaded to k.o, but this one has a github repo: https://lwn.net/Articles/464178/. Cheers, Tom Tom, go ahead with usbutils i don't have the time for it at the moment. thanks greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tp...@archlinux.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] [core] build report - 2012-03-10
On Mar 12, 2012 5:44 PM, Tobias Powalowski tobias.powalow...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 12.03.2012 16:00, schrieb Tom Gundersen: On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Allan McRae al...@archlinux.org wrote Similarly, has not been reuploaded to k.o, but this one has a github repo: https://lwn.net/Articles/464178/. Cheers, Tom Tom, go ahead with usbutils i don't have the time for it at the moment. thanks greetings tpowa Will do. T -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tp...@archlinux.org
[arch-dev-public] [core] build report - 2012-03-10
The following packages in the [core] repo fail to build: Missing Sources: FAIL: gcc curl: (78) RETR response: 550 FAIL: pcmciautils curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 FAIL: usbutils curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Build Failures: FAIL: grub autoreconf: automake failed with exit status: 1 FAIL: iproute2 ipl2tp.c:26:29: fatal error: netlink/netlink.h: No such file or directory Checksum Mismatches: FAIL: keyutils keyutils-1.5.5.tar.bz2 ... FAILED FAIL: licenses w3c.html ... FAILED
