Processed: Re: Bug#453242: gnustep-base: FTBFS: checking if ffcall trampolines work... no
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > severity 453242 important Bug#453242: gnustep-base: FTBFS: checking if ffcall trampolines work... no Severity set to `important' from `serious' > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#453242: gnustep-base: FTBFS: checking if ffcall trampolines work... no
severity 453242 important thanks While this bug is rather severe, it evidently hasn't caused problems so far (I guess not many people have been running GNUstep on Opeterons, since nobody's reported a bug yet). The proper fix (for now, until ffcall gets fixed) seems to be to use libffi instead of ffcall, but I want to do some more testing before I upload it, since it is a rather large change. I don't think it's worth holding back the GNUstep transition for this yet, so I'm downgrading this bug to non-RC. -- Hubert Chathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/ Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA pgpGTEfFmUWsQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#453242: gnustep-base: FTBFS: checking if ffcall trampolines work... no
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:11:25 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > On 11/12/07 at 21:10 -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote: >> Do you have any security-related features enabled? PaX, grsecurity, >> SELinux, etc.? It could be related to GNUstep bug #18968. >> >> http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=18968 > No. But Opterons have the nx bit. Maybe that's part of the problem? OK, that may explain why there have been reported problems of ffcall on amd64 (#451356) even though upstream listed amd64 as having been tested and working. Thinking about this more, I really don't like the idea of not being able to run on a system that has PaX, or grsecurity, or SELinux, as the Debian default. It seems like we would be discouraging people from using the extra security features. It looks like the best thing to do is to default to libffi, but make it easy for someone to recompile gnustep-base with ffcall if they want. I believe that both options with gnustep-base are binary-compatible (i.e. one would just need to recompile gnustep-base, and not all of the GNUstep applications). -- Hubert Chathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/ Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#453242: gnustep-base: FTBFS: checking if ffcall trampolines work... no
On 11/12/07 at 21:10 -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:44:23 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > > on i386. > > > I'm building in an i386 chroot on amd64. Maybe that's part of the > > problem. > > > Relevant part: > > >> checking if ffcall trampolines work... no none > >> > >> You have ffcall, but it does not work properly. Most likely because > >> your system's security policy is blocking some parts of ffcall we > [...] > > Do you have any security-related features enabled? PaX, grsecurity, > SELinux, etc.? It could be related to GNUstep bug #18968. > > http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=18968 No. But Opterons have the nx bit. Maybe that's part of the problem? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#453242: gnustep-base: FTBFS: checking if ffcall trampolines work... no
Hi Lucas, On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:44:23 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > on i386. > I'm building in an i386 chroot on amd64. Maybe that's part of the > problem. > Relevant part: >> checking if ffcall trampolines work... no none >> >> You have ffcall, but it does not work properly. Most likely because >> your system's security policy is blocking some parts of ffcall we [...] Do you have any security-related features enabled? PaX, grsecurity, SELinux, etc.? It could be related to GNUstep bug #18968. http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=18968 -- Hubert Chathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/ Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#453242: gnustep-base: FTBFS: checking if ffcall trampolines work... no
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:50:56PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 28/11/07 at 23:51 -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote: > > However, the test probably tries to *run* the code, not just compile > it. That's right, it is run via the AC_RUN_IFELSE macro, where the condition for cross-compiling is set to "have_working_trampoline=yes" -- but your configuration is not cross-compiling so the test program is being run. I don't understand the code, but AFAICS it cannot return success in that case. Is there are a reliable way to detect the host cpu in such an environment? > > i.e. if it only fails in that configuration, should this bug be > > "serious" or "important"? IMHO, Hubert, this is certainly not a release-critical bug. > However, a better question is probably "do we want it fix or not?". It is worth fixing if GNUstep upstream (or ffcall upstream) consider it a bug. Trampolines are an evil art. If this environment can be detected either by gnustep-base's configure or the trampoline test, it is the way to go. Failing that, the remaining solutions are just "to make it build", which is easy -- but not an actual bugfix. > Note that 1.13.0-7 built fine, too. Certainly, IIRC upstream indroduced this trampiline configure test in 0.14 precisely because they were receiving many bogus bug reports from Solaris/HP-UX users. GNUstep has always heavily relied on ffcall/ffi so when that's not working the behaviour of the whole framework is unpredictable, and it's very hard to figure out what's going on. So from their (upstream's) point of view, I believe that's a good change. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#453242: gnustep-base: FTBFS: checking if ffcall trampolines work... no
On 28/11/07 at 23:51 -0500, Hubert Chathi wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:44:23 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > > on i386. > > > I'm building in an i386 chroot on amd64. Maybe that's part of the > > problem. > > It compiles fine on my machine, which is a normal ix86 machine. And it > apparently compiles fine under amd64, too. (Although ffcall does seem > to have some problems with amd64 -- #451356.) > > Is building in an i386 chroot on and amd64 a "normal" configuration that > we are supposed to be supporting? I'm not sure. However, the test probably tries to *run* the code, not just compile it. So it probably won't be possible to use the package in an i386 chroot on amd64. > i.e. if it only fails in that configuration, should this bug be > "serious" or "important"? I don't know. However, a better question is probably "do we want it fix or not?". Only 2 or 3 packages currently fail to build in an i386 chroot on amd64, so it would be great not to add another one. :) Note that 1.13.0-7 built fine, too. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#453242: gnustep-base: FTBFS: checking if ffcall trampolines work... no
Hi Lucas, On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:44:23 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > on i386. > I'm building in an i386 chroot on amd64. Maybe that's part of the > problem. It compiles fine on my machine, which is a normal ix86 machine. And it apparently compiles fine under amd64, too. (Although ffcall does seem to have some problems with amd64 -- #451356.) Is building in an i386 chroot on and amd64 a "normal" configuration that we are supposed to be supporting? i.e. if it only fails in that configuration, should this bug be "serious" or "important"? /me considers, again, whether to just give up on ffcall, and switch to libffi... -- Hubert Chathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA http://www.uhoreg.ca/ Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#453242: gnustep-base: FTBFS: checking if ffcall trampolines work... no
Package: gnustep-base version: 1.14.1-2 Severity: serious User: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20071126 qa-ftbfs Justification: FTBFS on i386 Hi, During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on i386. I'm building in an i386 chroot on amd64. Maybe that's part of the problem. Relevant part: > checking if ffcall trampolines work... no > none > > You have ffcall, but it does not work properly. Most likely because > your system's security policy is blocking some parts of ffcall > we recommend installing libffi instead. > GNUstep requires ffcall or libffi and proper libobjc hooks to do > invocations and DO. > (This does not apply on apple-apple-apple systems where DO is > not compatible with other GNUstep systems.) > > You most likely do not want to build base without DO support. Many > things, including all applications, won't work at all without DO. > If you really want to build -base without DO support, add --disable-do > to the configure arguments. > For more information, read the GNUstep build guide, ffcall section: > http://gnustep.made-it.com/BuildGuide/index.html > configure: error: Incomplete support for ffi functionality. > make: *** [debian/configure-stamp] Error 1 > dpkg-buildpackage: failure: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2 The full build log is available from: http://people.debian.org/~lucas/logs/2007/11/26 A list of current common problems and possible solutions is available at http://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/FTBFS . You're welcome to contribute! About the archive rebuild: The rebuild was done on about 50 AMD64 nodes of the Grid'5000 platform, using a clean chroot containing a sid i386 environment. Internet was not accessible from the build systems. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
