Bug#1042023: opm-common: FTBFS on armel and mipsel
Hi, FYI the binary packages for architecture armel and mispel have now been removed from unstable. As the FTBFS is not fixed and never will be I won't close this bug but leave it as it is. If other prefer to close it that is of course fine with me. Cheers, Markus
Bug#1042023: opm-common: FTBFS on armel and mipsel
Hi, I have changed opm-common to not build on 32bit architectures anymore in version 2023.04+ds-3 and requested removal of the binary packages in #1049463 [1]. Once the binaries are removed we should decrease the severity of this bug to allow migation of new versions to testing again. Best, Markus [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1049463
Bug#1042023: opm-common: FTBFS on armel and mipsel
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 08:47:23 +0200 Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: Hello, if you request with a signed message you can as maintainer get access to porterboxes. See e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2019/04/msg00125.html Also I find useful with qemu-user-static and ubuntu-dev-tools installed to debug with pbuilder-dist sid armel create pbuilder-dist sid armel login and then copy-paste do whatever I want in the qemu-created chroot. It's slow, but works for most of the tasks I need to solve HTH Dear Gianfranco, Thank a lot. I ended up using a chroot using qemu and also found an armhf machine where I could see the same problems. It turns out that at least some of tests (e.g. test_AggregateActionxData) fail due to an std::time_t overflow on 32bit architectures. Chances are that the rest of the failures is similar. At upstream we never cared about those because they would seriously limit the simulation time. A few years ago I started to add 32bit patches to the Debian packages, but then I realized that this would become a very big effort with very little gain for the user. It is of course very unfortunate that we did not fail when testing before, but that was probably because of missing tests and luck. My proposal is to make our packages and upstream already check for 64bit when configuring the packages and remove the binaries of the archictures where this happens. Note that opm-common is more or less a helper package for the other OPM modules. For the user the architectures supported by opm-simulators and opm-upscaling are what matters. Removing other architectures from helper modules will not limit the usability in any major way. Best, Markus
Bug#1042023: opm-common: FTBFS on armel and mipsel
On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 14:52:56 +0200 Markus Blatt wrote: Thanks a lot for reporting this. We are aware of this but did not find the time to look into it, yet. Is there a good howto/instructions how to debug such problems using e.g. qemu for emulating arm? Or is it possible to gain access to an arm machine as a Debian Maintainer? That would help a lot. Kind regards, Markus Hello, if you request with a signed message you can as maintainer get access to porterboxes. See e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2019/04/msg00125.html Also I find useful with qemu-user-static and ubuntu-dev-tools installed to debug with pbuilder-dist sid armel create pbuilder-dist sid armel login and then copy-paste do whatever I want in the qemu-created chroot. It's slow, but works for most of the tasks I need to solve HTH G. OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1042023: opm-common: FTBFS on armel and mipsel
Thanks a lot for reporting this. We are aware of this but did not find the time to look into it, yet. Is there a good howto/instructions how to debug such problems using e.g. qemu for emulating arm? Or is it possible to gain access to an arm machine as a Debian Maintainer? That would help a lot. Kind regards, Markus
Bug#1042023: opm-common: FTBFS on armel and mipsel
Source: opm-common Version: 2023.04+ds-2 Severity: serious Tags: ftbfs Justification: fails to build from source (but built successfully in the past) X-Debbugs-Cc: sramac...@debian.org https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=opm-common=armel=2023.04%2Bds-2=1690096971=0 177/177 Test #39: fluidsystems . Passed 290.11 sec 98% tests passed, 3 tests failed out of 177 Total Test time (real) = 302.66 sec The following tests FAILED: 54 - ExtESmry (SEGFAULT) 133 - AggregateActionxData (Failed) 177 - python_tests (Failed) Errors while running CTest make[1]: *** [Makefile:74: test] Error 8 Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
