Re: nodejs package issues
On Sun, Feb 19, 2017 at 05:21:33PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > Thanks for doing that. If there is no action on that by the > maintainer in the near future, which is likely to be the case since > Debian is in hard freeze, I could upload a rebuilt libkf5purpose-bin > with the nodejs dependency removed to debian-ports unreleased. That seems to me to be a good way to go. Besides, does "hard freeze" have any meaning for a non-release architecture anyway? All our updates are from "unstable", "experimental", and "unreleased" as it is. > In the meantime I have found the source of the bug in the binutils > package (but not the fix) and have reported that upstream: > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21181 Nice work. Going to be interesting to see what the explanation is for the section offset difference. --Bob
Re: nodejs package issues
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 09:49:43PM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 11:49:06AM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:13:51AM +0100, Helge Deller wrote: > > > On hppa we will not support jnode short-term (and I assume it's true for > > > most other ports too). > > > So, if you open a bug, please include hppa to have the nodejs dependency > > > removed. > > > > I'll take care of this... Requested closure of #855259 with probable > > status of "won't fix" due to the magnitude of the work required to port > > "nodejs". Agreed that removing the inappropriate dependency on "nodejs" > > by "libkf5purpose-bin" is the way to go. > > Done. See Debian bug #855486. "alpha" and "hppa" specifically > mentioned. Thanks for doing that. If there is no action on that by the maintainer in the near future, which is likely to be the case since Debian is in hard freeze, I could upload a rebuilt libkf5purpose-bin with the nodejs dependency removed to debian-ports unreleased. In the meantime I have found the source of the bug in the binutils package (but not the fix) and have reported that upstream: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21181 Cheers Michael.
Re: nodejs package issues
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 11:49:06AM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:13:51AM +0100, Helge Deller wrote: > > On hppa we will not support jnode short-term (and I assume it's true for > > most other ports too). > > So, if you open a bug, please include hppa to have the nodejs dependency > > removed. > > I'll take care of this... Requested closure of #855259 with probable > status of "won't fix" due to the magnitude of the work required to port > "nodejs". Agreed that removing the inappropriate dependency on "nodejs" > by "libkf5purpose-bin" is the way to go. Done. See Debian bug #855486. "alpha" and "hppa" specifically mentioned. --Bob
Re: nodejs package issues
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:13:51AM +0100, Helge Deller wrote: > On 17.02.2017 06:56, Michael Cree wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:43:28PM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:23:05AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 03:43:02AM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > >>> (...) > Next issue is the "-m32" argument getting passed to the compiler. Not > appropriate for Alpha. > >>> > >>> That's a bug that should be reported to the package maintainer. > >> > >> Done. See Debian bug #855259 filed against the source package > > > > We have libkf5purpose-bin up to date in the archive but it depends on > > nodejs. We should have filed a bug against libkf5purpose-bin to have > > the nodejs dependency removed as has been already been done for armel > > which also does not have nodejs built. Indeed the bug report should > > probably ask for the dependency to be removed for all ports arches > > without nodejs (looks like alpha, hppa, m68k, powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64 > > and x32 but I am not sure whether there is active work or not to > > support nodejs on any of those.) > > On hppa we will not support jnode short-term (and I assume it's true for > most other ports too). > So, if you open a bug, please include hppa to have the nodejs dependency > removed. I'll take care of this... Requested closure of #855259 with probable status of "won't fix" due to the magnitude of the work required to port "nodejs". Agreed that removing the inappropriate dependency on "nodejs" by "libkf5purpose-bin" is the way to go. --Bob
Re: nodejs package issues
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 06:58:02PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:19:09PM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:23:05AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > > > I've got bigger fish to fry at the moment. In particular a > > > binutils/glibc bug that is causing segfaults in the dynamic symbol > > > resolver. Try this: write a simple "Hello world" program in C. > > > Compile with "-Wl,-z,now" linker option which causes the dynamic > > > loader to resolve all symbols at program invocation, rather than > > > resolving symbols when first used. If compiled with a recent > > > toolchain it segfaults [2]. > > > (...) > > > > > > [2] Toolchain gcc 4:6.1.1-1, binutils 2.27-8 produces a working > > > executable, but toolchains later than gcc 4:6.2.1-1, binutils > > > 2.27.90.20170124-2 are known to be bad. > > > > Verified the broken behavior for a kernel.org kernel version 4.9.0 with > > gcc 6.3.0 20170205 (Debian 6.3.0-6) and binutils 2.27.90.20170205. This > > is *nasty*. > > I don't understand. The toolchain bug is for executables built to run > in userspace, not for the kernel. What's the broken behaviour you are > seeing with the kernel? None whatsoever with the kernel. You spoke of a commit that needed to be backed out prior to building a kernel, but it wasn't clear from context what package that commit was against, and I ASSumed it was against the kernel tree without bothering to check. I went back and checked your earlier message, and I *think* the proper context was a warning not to try building a kernel with the broken tool chain. My kernel, built with the broken tool chain, seems to be working properly as best I can tell. Sorry for the confusion. --Bob
Re: nodejs package issues
On 17.02.2017 06:56, Michael Cree wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:43:28PM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:23:05AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 03:43:02AM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: >>> (...) Next issue is the "-m32" argument getting passed to the compiler. Not appropriate for Alpha. >>> >>> That's a bug that should be reported to the package maintainer. >> >> Done. See Debian bug #855259 filed against the source package > > We have libkf5purpose-bin up to date in the archive but it depends on > nodejs. We should have filed a bug against libkf5purpose-bin to have > the nodejs dependency removed as has been already been done for armel > which also does not have nodejs built. Indeed the bug report should > probably ask for the dependency to be removed for all ports arches > without nodejs (looks like alpha, hppa, m68k, powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64 > and x32 but I am not sure whether there is active work or not to > support nodejs on any of those.) On hppa we will not support jnode short-term (and I assume it's true for most other ports too). So, if you open a bug, please include hppa to have the nodejs dependency removed. Thanks, Helge
Re: nodejs package issues
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 09:19:09PM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:23:05AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > > I've got bigger fish to fry at the moment. In particular a > > binutils/glibc bug that is causing segfaults in the dynamic symbol > > resolver. Try this: write a simple "Hello world" program in C. > > Compile with "-Wl,-z,now" linker option which causes the dynamic > > loader to resolve all symbols at program invocation, rather than > > resolving symbols when first used. If compiled with a recent > > toolchain it segfaults [2]. > > (...) > > > > [2] Toolchain gcc 4:6.1.1-1, binutils 2.27-8 produces a working > > executable, but toolchains later than gcc 4:6.2.1-1, binutils > > 2.27.90.20170124-2 are known to be bad. > > Verified the broken behavior for a kernel.org kernel version 4.9.0 with > gcc 6.3.0 20170205 (Debian 6.3.0-6) and binutils 2.27.90.20170205. This > is *nasty*. I don't understand. The toolchain bug is for executables built to run in userspace, not for the kernel. What's the broken behaviour you are seeing with the kernel? Cheers Michael.
Re: nodejs package issues
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:43:28PM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:23:05AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 03:43:02AM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > > (...) > > > Next issue is the "-m32" argument getting passed to the compiler. Not > > > appropriate for Alpha. > > > > That's a bug that should be reported to the package maintainer. > > Done. See Debian bug #855259 filed against the source package. The > "reportbug" script automatically assigned a severity that the package > maintainer flagged as inappropriate due to alpha not being a release > architecture :-(. Unknown whether this issue will get worked in a > timely (for some definition of the word) fashion. Actually, I may have given bad advice to file that bug. That package looks like some JIT compiler and to support Alpha will be a mammoth task. It's not just removing the "-m32" argument from the compiler! Sorry, I didn't realise at first when you said nodejs that you were talking about, um..., nodejs. But, why are you thinking nodejs is required? Maybe you are getting stuck on plasma-widgets-addons? dose-debcheck reports: package: alpha:plasma-widgets-addons version: 4:5.8.4-1 architecture: alpha essential: false source: kdeplasma-addons (= 4:5.8.4-1) status: broken reasons: - missing: pkg: package: alpha:libkf5purpose-bin version: 1.1-4 architecture: alpha essential: false unsat-dependency: alpha:nodejs We have libkf5purpose-bin up to date in the archive but it depends on nodejs. We should have filed a bug against libkf5purpose-bin to have the nodejs dependency removed as has been already been done for armel which also does not have nodejs built. Indeed the bug report should probably ask for the dependency to be removed for all ports arches without nodejs (looks like alpha, hppa, m68k, powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64 and x32 but I am not sure whether there is active work or not to support nodejs on any of those.) Cheers Michael.
Re: nodejs package issues
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:23:05AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > I've got bigger fish to fry at the moment. In particular a > binutils/glibc bug that is causing segfaults in the dynamic symbol > resolver. Try this: write a simple "Hello world" program in C. > Compile with "-Wl,-z,now" linker option which causes the dynamic > loader to resolve all symbols at program invocation, rather than > resolving symbols when first used. If compiled with a recent > toolchain it segfaults [2]. > (...) > > [2] Toolchain gcc 4:6.1.1-1, binutils 2.27-8 produces a working > executable, but toolchains later than gcc 4:6.2.1-1, binutils > 2.27.90.20170124-2 are known to be bad. Verified the broken behavior for a kernel.org kernel version 4.9.0 with gcc 6.3.0 20170205 (Debian 6.3.0-6) and binutils 2.27.90.20170205. This is *nasty*. --Bob
Re: nodejs package issues
On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 08:23:05AM +1300, Michael Cree wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 03:43:02AM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > (...) > > Next issue is the "-m32" argument getting passed to the compiler. Not > > appropriate for Alpha. > > That's a bug that should be reported to the package maintainer. Done. See Debian bug #855259 filed against the source package. The "reportbug" script automatically assigned a severity that the package maintainer flagged as inappropriate due to alpha not being a release architecture :-(. Unknown whether this issue will get worked in a timely (for some definition of the word) fashion. --Bob
Re: nodejs package issues
CCing the list since others might like to see where we are at on Debian Alpha. On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 03:43:02AM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote: > The list of held packages was once again starting to get uncomfortably > long, so I took a dive into the swamp to see what was gumming up the > works. There's a new (?) dependency in the various "plasma-*" packages > on "nodejs", and attempting to build "nodejs-4.7.2~dfsg" uncovered a few > issues. OK, I hadn't seen that because been working on kernel and binutils/glibc bugs. If you build your own kernel make sure you revert commit 6cd9dc3e75078ef646076fa63adfb9b85ced0b66, as it leads to random segfaults in user space. [1] > First one is a circular dependency on "node-marked" and "node-yamlish". So there is a dependency loop between nodejs and node-yamlish, thus nodejs will need manual building and uploading. > Next issue is the "-m32" argument getting passed to the compiler. Not > appropriate for Alpha. That's a bug that should be reported to the package maintainer. I've got bigger fish to fry at the moment. In particular a binutils/glibc bug that is causing segfaults in the dynamic symbol resolver. Try this: write a simple "Hello world" program in C. Compile with "-Wl,-z,now" linker option which causes the dynamic loader to resolve all symbols at program invocation, rather than resolving symbols when first used. If compiled with a recent toolchain it segfaults [2]. That is holding up re-building quite a few packages because (recent?) configure scripts use the -Wl,-z,now option when testing to see if the C compiler can generate working executables! A segfaulting executable is not (unsurprisingly) considered a working executable by configure! Cheers Michael. [1] And if you run the Debian kernel you should consider building your own kernel with that commit reverted. [2] Toolchain gcc 4:6.1.1-1, binutils 2.27-8 produces a working executable, but toolchains later than gcc 4:6.2.1-1, binutils 2.27.90.20170124-2 are known to be bad.
