Re: [lfs-dev] Expected package changes for LFS-10.0 ?
On 7/28/20 5:30 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:32:50PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: The release will not be in time for LFS-10. Do you mean "old, with a broken test suite, but released" should always be preferred to "beta, but looks good" ? The old version with a broken test suite is a known quantity. We've used it for years. The beta is an unknown, other than the fact that regression tests now work. We don't use autoconf in LFS, but by my count there are 25 packages that use it in BLFS. Specifically, I found 23 that use autoreconf and two that use autoconf (id3lib and openldap). A lot of those packages are old. We could consider using the beta or git head if all those packages are tested. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Expected package changes for LFS-10.0 ?
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 04:32:50PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: > On 7/28/20 3:53 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: > > > I'll now mention that a new release of autoconf is being prepared. > > 2.69b (i.e. beta) came out a few days ago. Looking at gnu git, > > there have been a few more fixes since then. > > I'm on the autoconf mailing list and built the beta. > > Parallel build is OK. Tests are slow and don't seem to be parallelizable. > Agreed. > On a full system rhe tests pass with: > > 479 tests behaved as expected. > 44 tests were skipped. > Yes, that matches what I said. > Most of the skips were due to not having fortran, erlang, or go. There were > also four expected failures. > As with all other skips and expected failures, we normally ignore them. > There are a fair number of issues on the list, but AFAICT, not for x86_64. > Agreed > The release will not be in time for LFS-10. > > -- Bruce Do you mean "old, with a broken test suite, but released" should always be preferred to "beta, but looks good" ? ĸen -- +++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++ - Hogfather -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Expected package changes for LFS-10.0 ?
On 7/28/20 3:53 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: I'll now mention that a new release of autoconf is being prepared. 2.69b (i.e. beta) came out a few days ago. Looking at gnu git, there have been a few more fixes since then. I'm on the autoconf mailing list and built the beta. Parallel build is OK. Tests are slow and don't seem to be parallelizable. On a full system rhe tests pass with: 479 tests behaved as expected. 44 tests were skipped. Most of the skips were due to not having fortran, erlang, or go. There were also four expected failures. There are a fair number of issues on the list, but AFAICT, not for x86_64. The release will not be in time for LFS-10. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Expected package changes for LFS-10.0 ?
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:43:44PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: > On 7/27/20 10:35 PM, Xi Ruoyao via lfs-dev wrote: > > On 2020-07-28 03:30 +0100, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:05:32PM -0500, Douglas R. Reno via lfs-dev > > > wrote: > > > > As far as I know, we have another binutils as well (2.35). I think > > > > there's a > > > > new version of Check as well, the kernel, and util-linux. > > > > > > > Cheers. I'm on check-0.15.0 at the moment (haven't looked at any > > > LFS testsuite results yet). Binutils is the sort of thing which > > > might cause occasional breakage, util-linux less so in terms of > > > building and testing packages (but potentially more so in terms of > > > being able to run commands I usually run, of course). > > > > Glibc-2.32 will be released on Aug 1st. I suggest to wait for it since > > anyway > > we'll have to rebuild everything for it. > > > > That's my plan. > > -- Bruce I'll now mention that a new release of autoconf is being prepared. 2.69b (i.e. beta) came out a few days ago. Looking at gnu git, there have been a few more fixes since then. I've now found the release announcement at: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf/2020-07/msg6.html Quoting Zack Weinberg: | We are pleased to announce beta release 2.69b of GNU Autoconf. | | This release includes eight years of development work since the | previous release, 2.69. See below for the detailed list of changes | since the previous version, as summarized by the NEWS file. | | Because it has been such a long time, and because some of the changes | potentially break existing Autoconf scripts, we are conducting a | public beta test before the final release of version 2.70. Please | test this beta with your autoconf scripts, and report any problems you | find to the Savannah bug tracker: | |https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?func=additem=autoconf | | Please also send general comments and feedback to . | | Please also spread this announcement widely, so that as many Autoconf | users as possible hear about it. | | The final release of Autoconf 2.70 is tentatively scheduled for three | months from now. We may make more beta releases during this period. I'm running a system using what's in the book as of Saturday (now in BLFS, I've got as far as firefox), and still checking my logs re the test results. Got to autoconf, saw the breakage, and then remembered that I'd seen a mention of a maintainer. So, I can't say what will happen in chroot (maybe circular dependencies), but in my completed system with 2.69b and make -j8 (haswell i7) I got: ## - ## ## Test results. ## ## - ## 479 tests behaved as expected. 44 tests were skipped. For 2.69 in chroot I had: ERROR: 450 tests were run, 137 failed (4 expected failures). 53 tests were skipped. I'm usually reluctant to suggest beta versions for LFS, but perhaps this might be valid ? Clearly needs more testing, and it is _possible_ that it might break something in BLFS. I don't expect to finish this system for at least a week, probably longer (will be looking at perl modules and rust), but I'll certainly try 2.69b in my next build. ĸen -- +++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++ - Hogfather -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Expected package changes for LFS-10.0 ?
On 7/27/20 10:35 PM, Xi Ruoyao via lfs-dev wrote: On 2020-07-28 03:30 +0100, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:05:32PM -0500, Douglas R. Reno via lfs-dev wrote: As far as I know, we have another binutils as well (2.35). I think there's a new version of Check as well, the kernel, and util-linux. Cheers. I'm on check-0.15.0 at the moment (haven't looked at any LFS testsuite results yet). Binutils is the sort of thing which might cause occasional breakage, util-linux less so in terms of building and testing packages (but potentially more so in terms of being able to run commands I usually run, of course). Glibc-2.32 will be released on Aug 1st. I suggest to wait for it since anyway we'll have to rebuild everything for it. That's my plan. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Expected package changes for LFS-10.0 ?
On 2020-07-28 03:30 +0100, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:05:32PM -0500, Douglas R. Reno via lfs-dev wrote: > > As far as I know, we have another binutils as well (2.35). I think there's a > > new version of Check as well, the kernel, and util-linux. > > > Cheers. I'm on check-0.15.0 at the moment (haven't looked at any > LFS testsuite results yet). Binutils is the sort of thing which > might cause occasional breakage, util-linux less so in terms of > building and testing packages (but potentially more so in terms of > being able to run commands I usually run, of course). Glibc-2.32 will be released on Aug 1st. I suggest to wait for it since anyway we'll have to rebuild everything for it. -- Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Expected package changes for LFS-10.0 ?
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:05:32PM -0500, Douglas R. Reno via lfs-dev wrote: > > As far as I know, we have another binutils as well (2.35). I think there's a > new version of Check as well, the kernel, and util-linux. > Cheers. I'm on check-0.15.0 at the moment (haven't looked at any LFS testsuite results yet). Binutils is the sort of thing which might cause occasional breakage, util-linux less so in terms of building and testing packages (but potentially more so in terms of being able to run commands I usually run, of course). ĸen -- +++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++ - Hogfather -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Expected package changes for LFS-10.0 ?
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 09:00:55PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs via lfs-dev wrote: > On 7/27/20 8:45 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: > > I see that a newer gettext is now out, which probably allows > > bison-3.7.0 to build. Meanwhile, I'm hopeful that bison-3.7.1 will > > be out soon, with tests to detect whether it can use the functions > > added in 3.7 or must fall back to functions available in e.g. > > gettext-0.20.2. > > > > But meanwhile (and particularly re testing/measuring rust and its > > users in BLFS) I'm trying to get my head around what else in LFS is > > likely to change for LFS-10.0 - particularly toolchain packages. > > > For the main toolchain, I think that gcc-10.2.0 will be in, and from > > what Bruce said the other day on BLFS, a newer glibc. AFAICS, > > llvm-11 will not arrive until September and therefore llvm-10.0.1 is > > as new as we'll be using. > > > > Anything else, anyone, or anything wrong in what I've written here ? > > All the tickets at > http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/query?owner=~=assigned=new=reopened=milestone=id=summary=status=owner=type=time=owner Thanks, I think - pasting that into links ( still building firefox ) gives me tickets 1-100 of 4017 (highest priority defects, tickets #13 to #517 ). I'll look tomorrow when firefox is built. But I'm more concerned about things that people who have been following individual packages know are likely to be released soon ;-) > > > Also, any thoughts on when we can start testing 10.0, and therefore > > which kernel series to use (5.8.0 will either be released on Sunday, > > or else a week later) - in my current build I've used what is in the > > book (5.7.9) rather than 5.8-rc, but it feels "so old" ;-) > > We will try to get everything that is current on Aug 15. After that thee > will only be very limited updates -- nothing major. > OK, thanks for confirming that August 15 is the cutoff. > > I'm trying to optimize my time for testing, and measuring, the > > packages which use rust - hopefully to propose 1.45.0, but also to > > measure their sizes and build-slowness with both gcc and clang. For > > example, with current rustc-1.42.0 I know that firefox using the > > book's options builds faster with gccc than with llvm-10.0.0. I'd > > like to be able to offer gcc as an option for thunderbird (for > > people who care about security - llvm is poor on security options). > > I'll be updating everything that's open this weekend. > > -- Bruce ĸen -- +++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++ - Hogfather -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Expected package changes for LFS-10.0 ?
On 7/27/20 8:45 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: I see that a newer gettext is now out, which probably allows bison-3.7.0 to build. Meanwhile, I'm hopeful that bison-3.7.1 will be out soon, with tests to detect whether it can use the functions added in 3.7 or must fall back to functions available in e.g. gettext-0.20.2. But meanwhile (and particularly re testing/measuring rust and its users in BLFS) I'm trying to get my head around what else in LFS is likely to change for LFS-10.0 - particularly toolchain packages. For the main toolchain, I think that gcc-10.2.0 will be in, and from what Bruce said the other day on BLFS, a newer glibc. AFAICS, llvm-11 will not arrive until September and therefore llvm-10.0.1 is as new as we'll be using. Anything else, anyone, or anything wrong in what I've written here ? Also, any thoughts on when we can start testing 10.0, and therefore which kernel series to use (5.8.0 will either be released on Sunday, or else a week later) - in my current build I've used what is in the book (5.7.9) rather than 5.8-rc, but it feels "so old" ;-) I'm trying to optimize my time for testing, and measuring, the packages which use rust - hopefully to propose 1.45.0, but also to measure their sizes and build-slowness with both gcc and clang. For example, with current rustc-1.42.0 I know that firefox using the book's options builds faster with gccc than with llvm-10.0.0. I'd like to be able to offer gcc as an option for thunderbird (for people who care about security - llvm is poor on security options). TIA ĸen As far as I know, we have another binutils as well (2.35). I think there's a new version of Check as well, the kernel, and util-linux. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [lfs-dev] Expected package changes for LFS-10.0 ?
On 7/27/20 8:45 PM, Ken Moffat via lfs-dev wrote: I see that a newer gettext is now out, which probably allows bison-3.7.0 to build. Meanwhile, I'm hopeful that bison-3.7.1 will be out soon, with tests to detect whether it can use the functions added in 3.7 or must fall back to functions available in e.g. gettext-0.20.2. But meanwhile (and particularly re testing/measuring rust and its users in BLFS) I'm trying to get my head around what else in LFS is likely to change for LFS-10.0 - particularly toolchain packages. For the main toolchain, I think that gcc-10.2.0 will be in, and from what Bruce said the other day on BLFS, a newer glibc. AFAICS, llvm-11 will not arrive until September and therefore llvm-10.0.1 is as new as we'll be using. Anything else, anyone, or anything wrong in what I've written here ? All the tickets at http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/query?owner=~=assigned=new=reopened=milestone=id=summary=status=owner=type=time=owner Also, any thoughts on when we can start testing 10.0, and therefore which kernel series to use (5.8.0 will either be released on Sunday, or else a week later) - in my current build I've used what is in the book (5.7.9) rather than 5.8-rc, but it feels "so old" ;-) We will try to get everything that is current on Aug 15. After that thee will only be very limited updates -- nothing major. I'm trying to optimize my time for testing, and measuring, the packages which use rust - hopefully to propose 1.45.0, but also to measure their sizes and build-slowness with both gcc and clang. For example, with current rustc-1.42.0 I know that firefox using the book's options builds faster with gccc than with llvm-10.0.0. I'd like to be able to offer gcc as an option for thunderbird (for people who care about security - llvm is poor on security options). I'll be updating everything that's open this weekend. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
