Are the s390x builders healthy?
by Kaleb Keithley
I'm trying to build Ceph again for f31 after the branching.
It built before the branching, eight days ago.
The x86_64[1] part of number two below got further than either of the two
examples below before I killed it. I'm guessing it would have finished
successfully if I had let it. I have another running now to confirm.
But I'm getting strange errors on s390x.
One, e.g. (
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/6799/32926799/build.log)
BUILDSTDERR: {standard input}: Assembler messages:
BUILDSTDERR: {standard input}:464309: Warning: end of file not at end
of a line; newline inserted
BUILDSTDERR: {standard input}:465519: Error: invalid operands (*UND*
and .gcc_except_table sections) for `-'
BUILDSTDERR: c++: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program cc1plus
BUILDSTDERR: compilation terminated.
An earlier one (https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3857/32923857/build.log)
BUILDSTDERR: {standard input}: Error: .size expression for
_ZNSt8_Rb_treeINSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEEESt4pairIKS5_16StringConstraintESt10_Select1stIS9_ESt4lessIS5_ESaIS9_EE7_M_copyINSF_20_Reuse_or_alloc_nodeEEEPSt13_Rb_tree_nodeIS9_EPKSJ_PSt18_Rb_tree_node_baseRT_
does not evaluate to a constant
BUILDSTDERR: c++: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program cc1plus
BUILDSTDERR: compilation terminated.
Bad disk? Out of disk space? Any thoughts?
thanks,
[1]https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3856/32923856/build.log
--
Kaleb
5 years, 1 month
pypy
by Antonette Caldwell
Hi all
I also included this on the python-devel page.
I commented on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673127 that I will be working
on building pypy. So far, I was able to build pypy and pypy3 on rawhide, but this is my
first time creating the package. I copied the spec from both of the rpms/pypy packages[1],
but I wanted to know if I will have to create new spec, since I can see there are changes
between the 6.0.0 and 7.0.0 versions.
Here's what I have done so far from building pypy on rawhide
pypy
A build of pypy (with jit) on x86_64
[Timer] Timings:
[Timer] annotate --- 990.8 s
[Timer] rtype_lltype --- 1797.3 s
[Timer] pyjitpl_lltype --- 2112.1 s
[Timer] backendopt_lltype --- 400.0 s
[Timer] stackcheckinsertion_lltype --- 995.6 s
[Timer] database_c --- 907.0 s
[Timer] source_c --- 413.2 s
[Timer] compile_c --- 1274.7 s
[Timer] build_cffi_imports --- 16.7 s
[Timer] ===========================================
[Timer] Total: --- 8907.5 s
A build of pypy without jit on x86_64
[Timer] Timings:
[Timer] annotate --- 1233.1 s
[Timer] rtype_lltype --- 1554.2 s
[Timer] backendopt_lltype --- 407.9 s
[Timer] stackcheckinsertion_lltype --- 147.9 s
[Timer] database_c --- 698.6 s
[Timer] source_c --- 304.9 s
[Timer] compile_c --- 700.5 s
[Timer] build_cffi_imports --- 10.2 s
[Timer] ===========================================
[Timer] Total:
pypy3
A build of pypy with jit on x86_64
[translation:info] usession directory: /tmp/usession-py3.5-0
[Timer] Timings:
[Timer] annotate --- 260.5 s
[Timer] rtype_lltype --- 342.1 s
[Timer] pyjitpl_lltype --- 560.0 s
[Timer] backendopt_lltype --- 106.2 s
[Timer] stackcheckinsertion_lltype --- 53.4 s
[Timer] database_c --- 232.3 s
[Timer] source_c --- 101.7 s
[Timer] compile_c --- 547.3 s
[Timer] build_cffi_imports --- 17.9 s
[Timer] ===========================================
[Timer] Total: --- 2221.5 s
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pypy/blob/master/f/pypy.spec
Antonette Caldwell
5 years, 1 month
F30 System-Wide Change proposal: Move Gold Into A SubpackageOf Binutils
by Ben Cotton
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BINUTILS_GOLD
== Summary ==
Move the GOLD linker from the main binutils package into its own sub-package.
== Owner ==
* Name: Nick Clifton [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Nickc]
* Email: nickc(a)redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
The GOLD linker is currently part of the binutils package.
Unfortunately it seems that Google have decided not to continue
development of the linker, and so it is possible that it may start to
bit-rot. The linker is still being maintained by the upstream GNU
Binutils project, but new development is not happening. Thus as a
precautionary measure I would like to move GOLD into its own
sub-package of the binutils, in case in the future we decide that it
should be deprecated.
== Benefit to Fedora ==
In the short term none. Although also in the short term the change
should have no effect on Fedora. In the long term moving the gold
linker into its own package means that it could then be removed from
Fedora, should it turn out to be unmaintainable.
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: Create a sub-package of the binutils package
containing just the gold linker.
* Other developers: Packages that use the gold linker should add a
requirement on the new sub-package.
* Release engineering: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8130 (a check of
an impact with Release Engineering is needed)
A mass rebuild would be useful as it will help to identify packages
that need to update their requirements.
* Policies and guidelines: The packaging guidelines should be updated
to indicate that any package that uses the gold linker should have a
requirement on the new sub-package.
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
In theory there should be no impact when upgrading. As long as
packages that need a linker have a dependency upon the binutils
package, the new gold sub-package should be included as well.
== How To Test ==
No special hardware is needed, but a environment capable of building
packages is desirable.
First install the binutils package (if not already installed) and make
sure that both ld.bfd and ld.gold are in the search path.
Then try uninstalling the binutils-gold sub-package. This should
remove ld.gold. Try reinstalling it, which should restore ld.gold.
== User Experience ==
Ideally users should not notice any difference in their experience with Fedora.
== Dependencies ==
None.
== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism: Restore GOLD to the main binutils package.
This can be done by anyone familair with spec files, although ideally
it would be done by the binutils package maintainer (ie me).
* Contingency deadline: F31 release.
* Blocks release? No
* Blocks product? No
== Documentation ==
None written yet.
--
Ben Cotton
Fedora Program Manager
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
5 years, 1 month