Dne 23. 09. 22 v 17:30 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 5:12 PM Pavel Valena <pvalena(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 1:02 PM Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
Dne 22. 09. 22 v 23:36 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 12:41 PM Pavel Valena
> <pvalena(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 6:42 PM Vít Ondruch
> <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dne 19. 09. 22 v 18:22 Jun Aruga (he / him) napsal(a):
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 7:03 PM Vít Ondruch
> <vondruch(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >> Hi everybody,
> >>
> >> I think it is the highest time to kick of the Ruby
> 3.2 thread. So here
> >> we go. I have just pushed the first update to
> private-ruby-3.2 branch
> >> [1] and here is the scratch build:
> >>
> >>
>
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=92083633
> >>
> >> There is nothing what would stand out.
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, I was testing the
> `--enable-mkmf-verbose` configure option
> >> submitted upstream by @jaruga (thx a bunch) with
> the ByeBug example just
> >> to find out that ByeBug is broken due to some
> upstream changes [3]. So
> >> just early heads up that there will be needed some
> changes for Ruby 3.2.
> >>
> >> As always, feedback is appreciate via regular
> channels.
>
>
> Hi!
> Thanks for the build.
>
> I have tried to rebuild it in COPR, but I'm getting an error:
>
> ```
> 1)
> Process.clock_gettime supports the platform clocks
> mentioned in the documentation CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM ERROR
> Errno::EINVAL: Invalid argument - clock_gettime
>
/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:143:in
> `clock_gettime'
>
/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:143:in
> `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>'
>
/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:4:in
> `<top (required)>'
>
> 2)
> Process.clock_gettime supports the platform clocks
> mentioned in the documentation CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM ERROR
> Errno::EINVAL: Invalid argument - clock_gettime
>
/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:148:in
> `clock_gettime'
>
/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:148:in
> `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>'
>
/builddir/build/BUILD/ruby-3.2.0-6ad6994457/spec/ruby/core/process/clock_gettime_spec.rb:4:in
> `<top (required)>'
>
> ```
> Builds are available:
>
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/builds/
>
> Once this succeeds I plan to rebuild all rubygems we have
> in Fedora in the rubygems-testing COPR repository.
>
> Pavel
>
>
> - subsequent build succeeded, at least on rawhide +
> centos-stream-8 ... both x86_64
Hm the only successful build for fedora-rawhide-x86_64 is this:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/ruby-testing/build/4868339/
And the difference is in kernel. This successful build was
built on `kernel version == 5.14.10-300.fc35.x86_64`. The
failed attempts were using `kernel version ==
5.17.7-200.fc35.x86_64`. And the original Koji build was build
using `kernel version == 5.18.17-200.fc36.x86_64`. Not sure
what should be the takeaway now. But maybe the
`5.17.7-200.fc35.x86_64` kernel has some bug? It seems that
the implementation as well as the specs are properly conditioned:
https://github.com/ruby/spec/blob/8d26c0c202d3c098478fe17067a12b803504187...
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/a78c733cc32cc3da3796cbf65da21cdd40c6323...
Or the kernel-headers used during build might be broken ...
Of course this might be something completely different :)
Thanks for the investigation!
Yes, it's odd, I expected to get more successful builds, but
that's the only one out of ~8 builds... oddly enough s390x and
ppc64le have more success (approx every 2nd attempt). I will retry
once more, and hopefully some stable kernel will propagate into
COPR buildroots.
Oddly enough, I'm getting the same error on centos-stream-8 and
fedora-37 ... so it might be a builder kernel version instead
(capability missing).
In any case, I'm fine with the one successful build for
fedora-rawhide. I'm proceeding with rebuilding all rubygems in Fedora
in my COPR:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/builds/
It is unfortunate that such a minor bug might influence quite lot of the
ecosystem. Hopefully we will be in better shape in few months. And if
on, just remember we have to fix this one ;)
Vít
P.
Pavel
Vít
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list --ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email toruby-sig-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of
Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List
Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List
Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fed...
Do not reply to spam, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue