Tue, 2 May 2023 14:41:25 +0100 Andrew Cooper :
> Does this improve things for you?
./checker: /lib64/libc.so.6: version `GLIBC_2.34' not found (required by
./checker)
make[2]: *** [Makefile:24: check-headers] Error 1
I think as soon as tools/ or stubdom/ is built, more issues like that will
Tue, 2 May 2023 15:44:41 +0200 Jan Beulich :
> How would an out-of-tree build help (which for the hypervisor we now
> have support for)? An incremental build there will hit exactly the same
> issue afaict.
Each container target will use a separate output directory. The Leap container
will only
On 02.05.2023 15:36, Olaf Hering wrote:
> Tue, 2 May 2023 15:29:19 +0200 Jan Beulich :
>
>> Getting this to work automatically is a continued subject of discussion.
>
> I think the only real solution is an out-of-tree build. Essentially every
> single component needs to detect a toolchain
On 02/05/2023 1:04 pm, Olaf Hering wrote:
> Tue, 2 May 2023 13:33:13 +0200 Olaf Hering :
>
>> I will investigate why it failed to build for me.
> This happens if one builds first with the Tumbleweed container, and later
> with the Leap container, without a 'git clean -dffx' in between.
>
> Is
Tue, 2 May 2023 15:29:19 +0200 Jan Beulich :
> Getting this to work automatically is a continued subject of discussion.
I think the only real solution is an out-of-tree build. Essentially every
single component needs to detect a toolchain change. This is unrealistic.
Olaf
pgpjSDzLmeFs3.pgp
On 02.05.2023 14:04, Olaf Hering wrote:
> Tue, 2 May 2023 13:33:13 +0200 Olaf Hering :
>
>> I will investigate why it failed to build for me.
>
> This happens if one builds first with the Tumbleweed container, and later
> with the Leap container, without a 'git clean -dffx' in between.
>
> Is
Tue, 2 May 2023 13:33:13 +0200 Olaf Hering :
> I will investigate why it failed to build for me.
This happens if one builds first with the Tumbleweed container, and later with
the Leap container, without a 'git clean -dffx' in between.
Is there a way to invalidate everything if the toolchain
On 02/05/2023 12:33 pm, Olaf Hering wrote:
> Tue, 2 May 2023 09:31:56 +0200 Jan Beulich :
>
>> How does 2.37 vs 2.39 matter? CET-IBT support is present in gas as of 2.29.
> I have no idea. It turned out, the previous Leap image was based on 15.3,
> while the current one will be 15.4.
>
> If I run
Tue, 2 May 2023 09:31:56 +0200 Jan Beulich :
> How does 2.37 vs 2.39 matter? CET-IBT support is present in gas as of 2.29.
I have no idea. It turned out, the previous Leap image was based on 15.3, while
the current one will be 15.4.
If I run this manually, it appears the error is produced
On 02.05.2023 09:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 02.05.2023 07:48, Olaf Hering wrote:
>> The next push to xen.git#staging will trigger a build failure in the
>> refreshed Leap docker image.
>>
>> For some reason HAS_CC_CET_IBT will evaluate to true. I think the
>> significant change is the binutils
On 02.05.2023 07:48, Olaf Hering wrote:
> The next push to xen.git#staging will trigger a build failure in the
> refreshed Leap docker image.
>
> For some reason HAS_CC_CET_IBT will evaluate to true. I think the significant
> change is the binutils upgrade from 2.37 to 2.39 in November 2022.
>
The next push to xen.git#staging will trigger a build failure in the refreshed
Leap docker image.
For some reason HAS_CC_CET_IBT will evaluate to true. I think the significant
change is the binutils upgrade from 2.37 to 2.39 in November 2022.
The comment indicates the combination of gcc7 and
12 matches
Mail list logo
