Dne 23. 09. 22 v 17:30 Pavel Valena napsal(a):
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 5:12 PM Pavel Valena <pval...@redhat.com> wrote: On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 1:02 PM Vít Ondruch <vondr...@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 <pval...@redhat.com> wrote: On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 6:42 PM Vít Ondruch <vondr...@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 <vondr...@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_64Hm 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/8d26c0c202d3c098478fe17067a12b803504187e/core/process/fixtures/clocks.rb#L11 https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/a78c733cc32cc3da3796cbf65da21cdd40c63230/process.c#L9143-L9146 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/
Thx. Randomly looking at failing rubygem-xpath: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/build/4871650/ It require updated Nokogiri: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/build/4871117/ Which fails due to Racc: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems-testing/build/4871170/ The issue seems to be fixed upstream: https://github.com/ruby/racc/pull/191It 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email toruby-sig-le...@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.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report
it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@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.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
