Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting ignored *FLAGS
Il 26/07/2012 23:51, Michał Górny ha scritto: > You are looking for QA_FLAGS_IGNORED. Actually I'd say QA_PREBUILT. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting ignored *FLAGS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/27/2012 02:51 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:44:47 -0400 > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote: > >> I would REALLY like to cut down on things like what I saw when I >> upgraded today: >> >> * Messages for package >> app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-baselibs-20120520: > > You are looking for QA_FLAGS_IGNORED. > I am more than aware of how the ebuilds could be fixed, my point was, did the commiter ignore the warnings? Most likely not, most likely the commiter didn't realize there was an issue because this isn't checked by default, and it should be. So, can we add what is necessary for this to work to the dev profile *FLAGS? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQEjxhAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKwncP/izAfDaUMUhHqfKO/29GWTgt 9Lfs7h4gdU5BYCjluOsSSEOrDb0iMjKShkl63b5PGMFZ1FifSx3LAiYymAXeGmAD bs+F3PLv/jkFpXjs7aRbtHo+wtl0IKGpydc9UqsttJ3357w678KCa1eQDpfaME6P TDgouiZwrVYf0SPSO+F578uqp4Bf4sBaAb6VjZd2m9BbNk9VM67H9yjmTQa2ZK6U SynIX4hltESAdX59rsRAZwjmELxxSYlo27MPdDaqIyTa0kRe8SnqlUa8wR9DwD24 di/Ho/969moLXTqA/A7x0+uN1jX5dPQErwyvNUmpP4WAH0iybthKQwr/leyEi8Fn sLDXTw0PzqcMnxsK1Vl6CqnAaOtHQMmPhPT7Lo84c3kv2yQkljuRlDdH9O2HvVTO bmEVFekSPoPH/HXEDS8wha3Bzj+t5rwXhYDcL2l0S6Bsl2BpLKRrtG5UJWTP6/Oo fcNuFPvo3lmuL0dVc/oWswE0dkZHdIkqCTEl4ezyuBlSBPfxpVpV318DySz7QtEN ilrpBsEe6TKZgstRH2DCq4X97BM5WkLRvjQfmYnk/EybYNsTmstAtG3IeEr1Xesh SugoX67/mwQg4Dz4AlePbC8cDkHGx6/8e1TSrdP2Ja0sk/n6qP2dderjJS/1mCON PC0OIOW9td5RrbCVvFZO =Sb2H -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting ignored *FLAGS
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 01:44:47 -0400 "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" wrote: > I would REALLY like to cut down on things like what I saw when I > upgraded today: > > * Messages for package > app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-baselibs-20120520: You are looking for QA_FLAGS_IGNORED. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting ignored *FLAGS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/23/2012 01:44 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il 23/07/2012 10:30, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina ha scritto: >> Those are two very valid reasons why we can't add these to the profiles, >> but do you have any suggestions on how we can get more than just >> yourself running this QA? > > Add it to the dev profile (I think we have one?) via bashrc, then we > should have something. If something breaks on a dev box, I'd say the > best effort can be made to fix it. > So are we all in agreement to add the needed flags stuff to the dev profile? Anyone want to opt out of may I drop it in base? I would REALLY like to cut down on things like what I saw when I upgraded today: * Messages for package app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-baselibs-20120520: * QA Notice: Missing soname symlink(s): * * usr/lib32/libgnuintl.so.8 -> preloadable_libintl.so * * QA Notice: Missing soname symlink(s): * * usr/lib32/libgnuintl.so.8 -> preloadable_libintl.so * * QA Notice: Files built without respecting CFLAGS have been detected * Please include the following list of files in your report: * /lib32/libpam.so.0.83.1 * /lib32/libgpm.so.1.20.0 * /lib32/libudev.so.0.11.5 * /lib32/libblkid.so.1.1.0 * /lib32/libhistory.so.6.2 * /lib32/libmount.so.1.1.0 * /lib32/libgudev-1.0.so.0.1.0 * /lib32/libe2p.so.2.3 * /lib32/libbz2.so.1.0.6 * /lib32/libacl.so.1.1.0 * /lib32/libpamc.so.0.82.1 * /lib32/libcrack.so.2.8.1 * /lib32/libncurses.so.5.9 * /lib32/libuuid.so.1.3.0 * /lib32/libkeyutils-1.2.so * /lib32/libcom_err.so.2.1 * /lib32/libreadline.so.6.2 * /lib32/libpcre.so.0.0.1 * /lib32/libpwdb.so.0.62 * /lib32/libncursesw.so.5.9 * /lib32/libusb-0.1.so.4.4.4 * /lib32/libnss_ldap-2.14.1.so * /lib32/libext2fs.so.2.4 * /lib32/libwrap.so.0.7.6 * /lib32/libz.so.1.2.5 * /lib32/libattr.so.1.1.0 * /lib32/libtirpc.so.1.0.10 * /lib32/libpam_misc.so.0.82.0 * /lib32/security/pam_filter.so * /lib32/security/pam_motd.so * /lib32/security/pam_wheel.so * /lib32/security/pam_mkhomedir.so * /lib32/security/pam_localuser.so * /lib32/security/pam_timestamp.so * /lib32/security/pam_xauth.so * /lib32/security/pam_succeed_if.so * /lib32/security/pam_listfile.so * /lib32/security/pam_umask.so * /lib32/security/pam_debug.so * /lib32/security/pam_userdb.so * /lib32/security/pam_keyinit.so * /lib32/security/pam_mail.so * /lib32/security/pam_ldap.so * /lib32/security/pam_namespace.so * /lib32/security/pam_stress.so * /lib32/security/pam_nologin.so * /lib32/security/pam_exec.so * /lib32/security/pam_securetty.so * /lib32/security/pam_rhosts.so * /lib32/security/pam_tally.so * /lib32/security/pam_deny.so * /lib32/security/pam_ftp.so * /lib32/security/pam_pwhistory.so * /lib32/security/pam_faildelay.so * /lib32/security/pam_shells.so * /lib32/security/pam_warn.so * /lib32/security/pam_permit.so * /lib32/security/pam_env.so * /lib32/security/pam_echo.so * /lib32/security/pam_lastlog.so * /lib32/security/pam_rootok.so * /lib32/security/pam_issue.so * /lib32/security/pam_tally2.so * /lib32/security/pam_group.so * /lib32/security/pam_unix.so * /lib32/security/pam_access.so * /lib32/security/pam_cracklib.so * /lib32/security/pam_filter/upperLOWER * /lib32/security/pam_limits.so * /lib32/security/pam_time.so * /lib32/security/pam_loginuid.so * /lib32/libss.so.2.0 * Messages for package app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-db-20120520: * QA Notice: Files built without respecting CFLAGS have been detected * Please include the following list of files in your report: * /usr/lib32/mysql/libmysqlclient_r.so.16.0.0 * /usr/lib32/mysql/plugin/ha_innodb_plugin.so.0.0.0 * /usr/lib32/mysql/libmysqlclient.so.16.0.0 * /usr/lib32/libodbccr.so.2.0.0 * /usr/lib32/libodbcinst.so.2.0.0 * /usr/lib32/libmyodbc5-5.1.6.so * /usr/lib32/libodbc.so.2.0.0 * Messages for package app-emulation/emul-linux-x86-opengl-20120520: * QA Notice: Files built without respecting CFLAGS have been detected * Please include the following list of files in your report: * /usr/lib32/libglut.so.3.9.0 * /usr/lib32/libGLESv1_CM.so.1.1.0 * /usr/lib32/libdrm_nouveau.so.1.0.0 * /usr/lib32/libGLEWmx.so.1.6.0 * /usr/lib32/egl/egl_gallium.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/vmwgfx_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/nouveau_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/r300g_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/r300_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/r200_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/unichrome_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/savage_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/i965_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/sis_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/i965g_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/r600g_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/r128_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/nouveau_vieux_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/i915_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/i915g_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/i810_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/mga_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/swrast_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/tdfx_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/r600_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/swrastg_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/mach64_dri.so * /usr/lib32/mesa/radeon_dri.so * /usr/lib3
Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting ignored *FLAGS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/23/2012 01:44 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: > Il 23/07/2012 10:30, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina ha scritto: >> Those are two very valid reasons why we can't add these to the profiles, >> but do you have any suggestions on how we can get more than just >> yourself running this QA? > > Add it to the dev profile (I think we have one?) via bashrc, then we > should have something. If something breaks on a dev box, I'd say the > best effort can be made to fix it. > We do have a dev profile, and I agree that is a good place to start. Is there a good way to add that to the dev profile? I'm mostly curious if there is a way to do it without angering llvm/clang users? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQDZzwAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKAHkP/2akntlGkp9uTbOAp0zMZK+2 uI/nSIf7EMiv8sebWVXkSOpnucOpcrZdnXhLCzhb5rEcF+2tjwXQZw5vtsl5OCNr pGngn6r5qoQRBQt5WGBg9q73BY0vskN+LOLEPkq3tEYzJuTnS+a238oMZp8E3AvQ 9oH2eSLUqBJlsJtujj4Qu/VyITT7K4wfFRoL57epXdli600VES/L6owPmSbmyeoV JR3tX8uNW56Ua7yZOfP7fl0nDUGPiCp80hjiwuetdNw0SDGp8+xToysS5ZsNjhhl jSo0WeDO4TJG87uxovHWbT+iBWBEm/cbk4APsCbMZc96ef1v7jo1IYzZFCDaYiMP vB0xJJibQJqSDNqx6Fg6V+lM14HxGvy0ufdz4gUuQL1GsBJX5B/924+87akx32iR 8m1Z/iarxvcvox3hqHEdiRUIwUnjvt5CSlCh3Y5/yTKDIJqyGzQQ1N3yv7jEHCPB iXCrl007R75t7Zgp/2SHWcstzRQeLJhDem8JElhIoreH9EaAFO+9ZdQAHgjcknxt b9YUKrkoI1kPaH+NoDq0o5w0SpesF5fngJFbd/aAxcolMzPsjlsH5LJB/A/3rWrk +fzsa4rGof5Z4zyUVzaC2t5/rDnlrU0qitBDrmC11fP7KsAMnvA83AJ+H/5AmdDR xwWR8gYaXbaWseERW9qE =NrWq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting ignored *FLAGS
Il 23/07/2012 10:30, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina ha scritto: >> > > Those are two very valid reasons why we can't add these to the profiles, > but do you have any suggestions on how we can get more than just > yourself running this QA? Add it to the dev profile (I think we have one?) via bashrc, then we should have something. If something breaks on a dev box, I'd say the best effort can be made to fix it. -- Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting ignored *FLAGS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2012 08:44 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> Il 22/07/2012 14:38, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina ha scritto:
>> It would seem to me that we could get all these QA warning out of the
>> way very quickly by adding -frecord-gcc-switches to the *FLAGS in the
>> base profile (it appears to be platform agnostic but if I'm wrong we can
>> add it for supported arches).
>
> Ehm no that's not a good idea because it can actually cause problems.
> Some ebuilds do s/-O2/${CFLAGS} s/gcc/$(tc-getCC)/ (in this order) and
> then -frecord-gcc-switches will fail.
>
> Other packages call ld directly, and then -frecord-gcc-switches in
> LDFLAGS will fail...
>
Those are two very valid reasons why we can't add these to the profiles,
but do you have any suggestions on how we can get more than just
yourself running this QA?
Even something simply like detecting CFLAGS="-frecord-gcc-switches" set
but not FFLAGS and then teasing the user into fixing it would seem
worthwhile to me.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=3iiT
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting ignored *FLAGS
Il 22/07/2012 14:38, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina ha scritto:
> It would seem to me that we could get all these QA warning out of the
> way very quickly by adding -frecord-gcc-switches to the *FLAGS in the
> base profile (it appears to be platform agnostic but if I'm wrong we can
> add it for supported arches).
Ehm no that's not a good idea because it can actually cause problems.
Some ebuilds do s/-O2/${CFLAGS} s/gcc/$(tc-getCC)/ (in this order) and
then -frecord-gcc-switches will fail.
Other packages call ld directly, and then -frecord-gcc-switches in
LDFLAGS will fail...
--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flamee...@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Detecting ignored *FLAGS
On 07/22/2012 02:38 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
> It would seem to me that we could get all these QA warning out of the
> way very quickly by adding -frecord-gcc-switches to the *FLAGS in the
> base profile (it appears to be platform agnostic but if I'm wrong we can
> add it for supported arches).
Most users probably won't notice unless they have
PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="${PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES} qa" or use the developer
profile which sets that automatically.
Also, the user's *FLAGS settings will override any settings from the
profile, unless the user does something like CFLAGS="${CFLAGS} foo bar".
--
Thanks,
Zac
[gentoo-dev] Detecting ignored *FLAGS
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 (Sorry for resend but I really should have been paying attention to which account I was sending from) Recently a bug was filed against one of my packages with something I had thought was impossible, package wasn't respecting CFLAGS: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=426766 The reason I thought this was impossible, was because I have - -frecord-gcc-switches in CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS (and it's a C++ application). I opened up a bug to learn more, and learned a lot very quickly: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=427654 As it turns out, it is documented inside portage itself that CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, FFLAGS, FCFLAGS all need to have -frecord-gcc-switches or the QA mechanism doesn't work. It would seem to me that we could get all these QA warning out of the way very quickly by adding -frecord-gcc-switches to the *FLAGS in the base profile (it appears to be platform agnostic but if I'm wrong we can add it for supported arches). YES, I admit this will cause users to see warnings for a short period of adjustment, but it will be non-fatal and help us get all these packages resolved much faster. It shouldn't be up to flameeyes to be the only one doing QA like this (because I thought I was but clearly I've been doing it wrong and I can't be alone in that). Thanks, Zero -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQDHLBAAoJEKXdFCfdEflKlVQQAKFPvhzS/1kpa8zAV+mXdKw3 znLqoi2NNO4Z03GBdt9VyNXDT+nCL1VDzbH8OLjQnHas+88Zguhsr0bueEJ2Avti XfTVTH1ZCGmpbLi2aAJfFxiqAfYvzgyJoQ36AjSGqgkMFG+GOeO/Z8P/mr4zEMDP xROEBEWQhZGYuvnMECPOfruXfCXwe5TA4WD3k+9CzjmXz/bxfB6fNVeHwQWX3V5/ fXPnAuQEhMQ0jM+KkNxFgPqw3OuDg1rwC09uCm06lkp1LSOr77d1xtvrfR4rfpgE agQ58usTy7Hyypmml7QdBTX7ox74epmCRxoGLdu9ChXe7x0jVCi0SFdLXpfuVnZO 7nyrHlIqxGVjCtU78loAAF2TFBc4UoLOqIxJ5zd2GVuUv/JIWKrtFPk0dcsu/u5t dFQD2cpzgg+YqXJku2vChWzAdol8+236wiHzwZO6cyRlnCi9Ca1DQZwG1Y4QxAMD 2aPQ5BwHDwZkpoytn7A3FAX84hQq3JuO5CzEixOu3qQQ2tvAVOiro3o+/caep6nF a1gqghVj23DM76zBimpVpVBvKNhuZlRzeN+F/uZv7ssMjHlIb2ypkeA/EZXo/Plp +ItWSSMt42H5DyFeCqFNZX1/xXcyzG1WyoktPipeVMqVDI2yEQyYmCXVdqXNG72w WAgJxX95gm8xommGAVH7 =Yq4L -END PGP SIGNATURE-
