Can we add another version string component like -1 or -impala1, or add a dummy patch to the affected packages to allow for new versions with the same upstream version? I think this is what Linux distributions commonly do to have several versions of the same upstream version.
On Feb 27, 2017 21:15, "Henry Robinson" <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, it would force re-downloading. At my office, downloading a toolchain takes a matter of a few seconds, so I'm not sure the cost is that great. And if it turned out to be problematic, one could always change the toolchain directory for different branches. Having something locally that set IMPALA_TOOLCHAIN_DIR=${IMPALA_HOME}/${IMPALA_TOOLCHAIN_BUILD_ID}/ would work. However I wouldn't want to force behaviour that into the toolchain scripts because of the need for garbage collection it would raise - it wouldn't be clear when to delete old toolchains programatically. On 27 February 2017 at 20:51, Tim Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but wouldn't that force re-downloading of the > entire toolchain every time a developer switches between branches with > different build IDs? > > I know some developers do that frequently, e.g. to try and reproduce bugs > on older versions or backport patches. > > I agree it would be good to fix this, since I've run into this problem > before, I'm just not quite sure what the best solution is. In the other > case where I had this issue with LLVM I changed the version number (by > appending noasserts-) to it, but that's really just a hack. > > -Tim > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Henry Robinson <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > As Matt said, I have a patch that implements build ID-based versioning at > > https://gerrit.cloudera.org/#/c/6166/2. > > > > Does anyone want to take a look? If we could get this in soon it would > help > > smooth over the LZ4 change which is going in shortly. > > > > On 27 February 2017 at 14:21, Henry Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I agree that that might be useful, and that it's a separately > addressable > > > problem. > > > > > > On 27 February 2017 at 14:18, Matthew Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> Just catching up to this e-mail, though I had seen your code reviews > > >> and I think this approach makes sense. An additional concern would be > > >> how to identify how a toolchain package was built, and AFAIK this is > > >> tricky now if only the 'toolchain ID' is known. Before I saw this > > >> e-mail I was thinking about this problem (which I think we can address > > >> separately), and that we might want to write the native-toolchain git > > >> hash with every toolchain build so that the exact build scripts are > > >> associated with those build artifacts. I filed > > >> https://issues.cloudera.org/browse/IMPALA-5002 for this related > > >> problem. > > >> > > >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Henry Robinson <[email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > As written, the toolchain can't apparently deal with the possibility > > of > > >> > build flags changing, but a dependency version remaining the same. > > >> > > > >> > LZ4 has never (afaict) been built with optimization enabled. I have > a > > >> > commit that enables -O3, but that continues to produce artifacts for > > >> > lz4-1.7.5 with no version change. This is a problem because > > >> bootstrapping > > >> > the toolchain will fail to pick up the new binaries - because the > > >> > previously downloaded version is still in the local cache, and won't > > be > > >> > overwritten because of the version change. > > >> > > > >> > I think the simplest way to fix this is to write the toolchain build > > ID > > >> to > > >> > the dependency version file (that's in the local cache only) when > it's > > >> > downloaded. If that ID changes, the dependency will be > re-downloaded. > > >> > > > >> > This has the disadvantage that any bump in IMPALA_TOOLCHAIN_BUILD_ID > > >> will > > >> > invalidate all dependencies, and bin/bootstrap_toolchain.py will > > >> > re-download all of them. My feeling is that that cost is better than > > >> trying > > >> > to individually determine whether a dependency has changed between > > >> > toolchain builds. > > >> > > > >> > Any thoughts on whether this is the right way to go? > > >> > > > >> > Henry > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Henry Robinson > > > Software Engineer > > > Cloudera > > > 415-994-6679 <(415)%20994-6679> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Henry Robinson > > Software Engineer > > Cloudera > > 415-994-6679 > > > -- Henry Robinson Software Engineer Cloudera 415-994-6679 <(415)%20994-6679>
