Bug#818552: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#818552: Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[Jérémy Lal]

2016-06-18 20:38 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard :

> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2016-06-18 20:20:24)
> > 2016-06-18 14:47 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard :
> >
> > > Quoting Jérémy Lal (2016-06-18 14:16:11)
> > > > > Update: v8 has dropped armv5 support, see
> > > > > https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5810
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/v8-users/aSOFbaAQvMk
> > > > > I'm going to remove "armel" from the list of Architectures.
> > > >
> > > > And as usual, i'm completely lost when it comes to that part. It's
> easy
> > > to
> > > > do something,
> > > > but i don't understand clearly all the consequences on existing armel
> > > > packages that depend
> > > > or build-depend on nodejs;
> > > > - should i whitelist in debian/control Architecture field ?
> > > > it seems error-prone since i must be sure i'm not forgetting any
> official
> > > > arch, and blacklisting
> > > > is not possible ("any -armel" would have been so cool, though).
> > > > - should i leave architecture "any", and ask removal of nodejs/armel
> from
> > > > testing then artificially
> > > > make it fail when building on armel ?
> > >
> > > No matter if also doing other things, we must request removal, for
> > > nodejs itself and also for all arch-any reverse dependencies of nodejs.
> > >
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> >
> > > Marking in source that the package is not targeted armel at all is a
> > > nice thing to do but not essential, as I understand it.
> >
> >
> > Some mecanism must be set to prevent building on armel, because actual
> > buildd armel servers are armv7 and as such are supported by nodejs >= 4.
>
> Not sure I understand what you are saying here.
>
> If a buildd succesfully compiles code which does *not* request any ARMv6
> or ARMv7 features (e.g. hardfloat or neon), then is there any problem at
> all?!?
>
>
> > Otherwise it is right that only removing nodejs and reverse deps from
> > testing would be enough.
>
> If you really want, you can add a build rule to explicitly fail, but
> please elaborate why that would be necessary.
>
>
armel is >= armv5t but v8 now supports only >= armv7, which is also the kind
of cpu the build servers have.
This bug was reported by a user having a armv5 cpu.

Jérémy.

Bug#818552: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#818552: Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Jérémy Lal (2016-06-18 20:20:24)
> 2016-06-18 14:47 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard :
> 
> > Quoting Jérémy Lal (2016-06-18 14:16:11)
> > > > Update: v8 has dropped armv5 support, see
> > > > https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5810
> > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/v8-users/aSOFbaAQvMk
> > > > I'm going to remove "armel" from the list of Architectures.
> > >
> > > And as usual, i'm completely lost when it comes to that part. It's easy
> > to
> > > do something,
> > > but i don't understand clearly all the consequences on existing armel
> > > packages that depend
> > > or build-depend on nodejs;
> > > - should i whitelist in debian/control Architecture field ?
> > > it seems error-prone since i must be sure i'm not forgetting any official
> > > arch, and blacklisting
> > > is not possible ("any -armel" would have been so cool, though).
> > > - should i leave architecture "any", and ask removal of nodejs/armel from
> > > testing then artificially
> > > make it fail when building on armel ?
> >
> > No matter if also doing other things, we must request removal, for
> > nodejs itself and also for all arch-any reverse dependencies of nodejs.
> >
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> > Marking in source that the package is not targeted armel at all is a
> > nice thing to do but not essential, as I understand it.
> 
> 
> Some mecanism must be set to prevent building on armel, because actual
> buildd armel servers are armv7 and as such are supported by nodejs >= 4.

Not sure I understand what you are saying here.

If a buildd succesfully compiles code which does *not* request any ARMv6 
or ARMv7 features (e.g. hardfloat or neon), then is there any problem at 
all?!?


> Otherwise it is right that only removing nodejs and reverse deps from
> testing would be enough.

If you really want, you can add a build rule to explicitly fail, but 
please elaborate why that would be necessary.


> I am not sure what is going to happen which Arch: all packages 
> build-depending on nodejs, though.

Nothing need to happen with those, I believe.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#818552: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#818552: Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[Jérémy Lal]

2016-06-18 14:47 GMT+02:00 Jonas Smedegaard :

> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2016-06-18 14:16:11)
> > > Update: v8 has dropped armv5 support, see
> > > https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5810
> > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/v8-users/aSOFbaAQvMk
> > > I'm going to remove "armel" from the list of Architectures.
> >
> > And as usual, i'm completely lost when it comes to that part. It's easy
> to
> > do something,
> > but i don't understand clearly all the consequences on existing armel
> > packages that depend
> > or build-depend on nodejs;
> > - should i whitelist in debian/control Architecture field ?
> > it seems error-prone since i must be sure i'm not forgetting any official
> > arch, and blacklisting
> > is not possible ("any -armel" would have been so cool, though).
> > - should i leave architecture "any", and ask removal of nodejs/armel from
> > testing then artificially
> > make it fail when building on armel ?
>
> No matter if also doing other things, we must request removal, for
> nodejs itself and also for all arch-any reverse dependencies of nodejs.
>

Agreed.


> Marking in source that the package is not targeted armel at all is a
> nice thing to do but not essential, as I understand it.


Some mecanism must be set to prevent building on armel, because actual
buildd armel servers are armv7 and as such are supported by nodejs >= 4.

Otherwise it is right that only removing nodejs and reverse deps from
testing would be enough.
I am not sure what is going to happen which Arch: all packages
build-depending on
nodejs, though.

Jérémy

Bug#818552: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2016-06-18 14:47:57)
> Quoting Jérémy Lal (2016-06-18 14:16:11)
> > - should i whitelist in debian/control Architecture field ?
> > it seems error-prone since i must be sure i'm not forgetting any official
> > arch, and blacklisting
> > is not possible ("any -armel" would have been so cool, though).

If you go for specific archs, then...

Negation syntax (where supported) is not "any -armel" but "!armel".

Known archs is resolved with "dpkg-architecture -L" (or some variant 
based on that).


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#818552: [Pkg-javascript-devel] Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Jérémy Lal (2016-06-18 14:16:11)
> > Update: v8 has dropped armv5 support, see
> > https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5810
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/v8-users/aSOFbaAQvMk
> > I'm going to remove "armel" from the list of Architectures.
> 
> And as usual, i'm completely lost when it comes to that part. It's easy to
> do something,
> but i don't understand clearly all the consequences on existing armel
> packages that depend
> or build-depend on nodejs;
> - should i whitelist in debian/control Architecture field ?
> it seems error-prone since i must be sure i'm not forgetting any official
> arch, and blacklisting
> is not possible ("any -armel" would have been so cool, though).
> - should i leave architecture "any", and ask removal of nodejs/armel from
> testing then artificially
> make it fail when building on armel ?

No matter if also doing other things, we must request removal, for 
nodejs itself and also for all arch-any reverse dependencies of nodejs.

Marking in source that the package is not targeted armel at all is a 
nice thing to do but not essential, as I understand it.

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[Jérémy Lal]

> Update: v8 has dropped armv5 support, see
> https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5810
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/v8-users/aSOFbaAQvMk
> I'm going to remove "armel" from the list of Architectures.

And as usual, i'm completely lost when it comes to that part. It's easy to
do something,
but i don't understand clearly all the consequences on existing armel
packages that depend
or build-depend on nodejs;
- should i whitelist in debian/control Architecture field ?
it seems error-prone since i must be sure i'm not forgetting any official
arch, and blacklisting
is not possible ("any -armel" would have been so cool, though).
- should i leave architecture "any", and ask removal of nodejs/armel from
testing then artificially
make it fail when building on armel ?

Help !

Jérémy

Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting tYYGH (2016-05-14 18:31:55)
> Le 09/05/2016 à 16:00, Jérémy Lal a écrit :
> > 2016-05-09 15:41 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal  > >:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > sorry for the delay,
> >
> >
> > Update: v8 has dropped armv5 support, see
> > https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5810
> > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/v8-users/aSOFbaAQvMk
> >
> > I'm going to remove "armel" from the list of Architectures.
> >
> > Jérémy
> 
> Thank you for replying Jérémy. Actually, tYYGH is me ;-)
> I’m currently looking for a good alternative to the eSata sheevaplug, 
> ie. a sub-100€/$ (e)Sata-or-USB3 GbEth 2GBram bi/quad-core <5W home server…

...and I am @jonassmedegaard at above referenced github discussion.

Please let's not pollute bugreports further with shopping discussions, 
but instead move that discussion either private or (preferred) to a 
public mailinglist - e.g. either 
freedombox-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org or 
pkg-javascript-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org :-)


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[tYYGH]

Le 09/05/2016 à 16:00, Jérémy Lal a écrit :

2016-05-09 15:41 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal mailto:kapo...@melix.org>>:

Hi,

sorry for the delay,


Update: v8 has dropped armv5 support, see
https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5810
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/v8-users/aSOFbaAQvMk

I'm going to remove "armel" from the list of Architectures.

Jérémy


Thank you for replying Jérémy. Actually, tYYGH is me ;-)
I’m currently looking for a good alternative to the eSata sheevaplug, 
ie. a sub-100€/$ (e)Sata-or-USB3 GbEth 2GBram bi/quad-core <5W home server…

Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[Jérémy Lal]

2016-05-09 15:41 GMT+02:00 Jérémy Lal :

> Hi,
>
> sorry for the delay,
>

Update: v8 has dropped armv5 support, see
https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/5810
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/v8-users/aSOFbaAQvMk

I'm going to remove "armel" from the list of Architectures.

Jérémy

Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[Jérémy Lal]

Hi,

sorry for the delay,
somehow i did not receive this bug report.

Could you give me the output of
`cat /proc/cpuinfo` ?

Could you tell me if you get the same error with versions
4.3.1 or 4.4.3

If it does crash on version 4.3.1, and since this bug prevents migration to
testing,
i might lower its importance, but that doesn't mean i won't try to fix it.

Jérémy

Bug#818552: nodejs on armel (v5l) fails with "illegal instruction"

[Y. Gablin]

Package: nodejs
Version: 4.4.0~dfsg-1
Severity: grave
Tags: upstream
Justification: renders package unusable

Dear Maintainer,


   * What led up to the situation?
Need for a newer NodeJS than available in Debian-stable, in order to install a 
full Firefox-sync server.

   * What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
 ineffective)?
I first tried to apt-get source nodejs from unstable && debbuild on stable.
Then I tried to just install nodejs from unstable onto stable (changing 
sources.list).
As all failed, I then debootstraped Debian stretch in a chroot (systemd-nspawn).
This last test failed too so I installed the nodejs from unstable into the 
chroot.

   * What was the outcome of this action?
Newer NodeJS always fail with "illegal instruction".

   * What outcome did you expect instead?
NodeJS and npm working.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: armel (armv5tel)

Kernel: Linux 3.16.0-4-kirkwood
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: unable to detect (that's because of systemd-nspawn; my init system is 
systemd)

Versions of packages nodejs depends on:
ii  libc62.21-9
ii  libgcc1  1:5.3.1-11
ii  libicu55 55.1-7
ii  libssl1.0.2  1.0.2g-1
ii  libstdc++6   5.3.1-11
ii  libuv1   1.8.0-1
ii  zlib1g   1:1.2.8.dfsg-2+b1

nodejs recommends no packages.

nodejs suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information