On 12/12/13 12:00, Yann Rouillard wrote:
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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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
Thank you all for your efforts and contributions! I will use the work
around as suggested. Great idea about setting up the T5220 build-only host!
Best Regards,
/Jake
