No significant answer from Oracle for 3 weeks now. I am asking for update on a weekly basis but I don't have matter to increase the priority of this issue as there is not production impact and an easy workaround.
I do think we will eventually get an answer. Yann 2013/12/12 Dagobert Michelsen via buildfarm <[email protected]> > Hi Jake, > > Am 12.12.2013 um 19:53 schrieb Jake Goerzen via buildfarm: > > On 11/13/13 06:16, Dagobert Michelsen via buildfarm wrote: > >> Am 13.11.2013 um 10:03 schrieb Laurent Blume via buildfarm < > [email protected]>: > >>> Regularly, I'm having silly issues with linking on the buildfarm with > different behaviour on x86 and sparc. > >>> This time, in krb5-lib: with the same recipe, some binaries get linked > to libintl.so on unstable10s, and they don't on unstable10x. > >>> On my home system, x86, they do get linked. > >>> > >>> I'm noticing that ld on the buildfarm is not at all consistent: > >>> > >>> At home: > >>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 10300 janv 14 2013 /usr/ccs/bin/ld > >>> > >>> unstable10s: > >>> $ ls -l /usr/ccs/bin/ld > >>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 10788 Jan 16 2013 /usr/ccs/bin/ld > >>> > >>> unstable10x: > >>> $ ls -l /usr/ccs/bin/ld > >>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin 10172 Jul 4 2011 /usr/ccs/bin/ld > >>> > >>> > >>> Since it's part of the kernel patch, I gather that unstable10x was > kept back for some reason, as its kernel is older. > >>> > >>> Can unstable10x be upgraded? I am reasonably sure it would fix some of > the linking issues I'm hitting right now. > >> > >> I would prefer not to unless we fully understand the issue as discussed > on irc. > > > > Hi Dago, > > > > Has there been any update on the issue of ld being inconsistent on the > buildfarm yet? I have been putting off working on some things until a > resolution has been found. > > Yann has a case open at Oracle, but I doubt we get anything useful out of > it. > For now I recommend just adding the extra deps and unconditionally > overriding > them for i386. For mid-term William told me he will get some T5220 and he > would > be willing to give one to the project. This would allow me another > build-only > machine which is not going to be updated. Then we could also really stick > to > u8 (or u5?) for all packaging zones. But don't expect this before q2 2014. > > Sorry for the inconvenience > > -- Dago
