[Touch-packages] [Bug 1961425] Re: 22.04: FTBFS due to test failure
Just noticed that version 0.8.0-2ubuntu2 ( https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/capnproto/0.8.0-2ubuntu2 ) landed at the start of the month. This version has a patch that fixes the string issue; renameat2 issue remains, but it won't trigger unless building (and running the unit tests) from a ZFS volume. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to capnproto in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1961425 Title: 22.04: FTBFS due to test failure Status in The Ubuntu-power-systems project: New Status in capnproto package in Ubuntu: Confirmed Bug description: Hi, capnproto 0.8.0-2ubuntu1 fails on ppc64el : https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/capnproto/0.8.0-2ubuntu1/+build/23090234/+files/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-ppc64el.capnproto_0.8.0-2ubuntu1_BUILDING.txt.gz Lowering optimization (O3->O2) level makes the failing test pass, for instance adding export DEB_CXXFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-O1 export DEB_CXXFLAGS_MAINT_STRIP=-O3 in debian/rules. For the time being that can be the way to go as 0.9.1-2 from Debian Experimental builds fine on Jammy by default with O3. F. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-power-systems/+bug/1961425/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Touch-packages] [Bug 1961425] Re: 22.04: FTBFS due to test failure
I was looking into this for a few days and failure:
[ TEST ] kj/string-test.c++:31: legacy test: String/Str
kj/string-test.c++:38: failed: expected ("-128 -32768 -2147483648
-9223372036854775808") == (str((signed char)-128, ' ', (signed short)-32768, '
', ((int)-2147483647) - 1, ' ', ((long long)-9223372036854775807ll) - 1)); -128
-32768 -2147483648 -9223372036854775808; str((signed char)-128, ' ', (signed
short)-32768, ' ', ((int)-2147483647) - 1, ' ', ((long
long)-9223372036854775807ll) - 1) = -128 -32768 -214748364( -9223372036854775808
stack: c27f3c60b7b c27f38280d7 764d217568b3 764d216c058f 764d217549e3
764d2175661f 764d216ef643 764d21701a83 764d216c058f 764d216f568b 764d2175314f
764d211017a3 764d21101987
[ FAIL ] kj/string-test.c++:31: legacy test: String/Str (85 μs)
... is caused by the code depending on undefined behavior, which happens
to pass on x64 and arm64 but fails on ppc64el. Reducing optimization
level works but I won't count on it to be stable. But since the problem
is already fixed in 0.9.0 (currently on experimental), we can get the
fix when that version is merged.
There are also a different FTBFS caused by a few test cases that fail
when the unit tests are ran from a ZFS volume. I only hit it after
building on a container backed by ZFS storage, btw. It's caused by a
capnproto component using its own wrapper for system call renameat2()
without implementing the fallback for it on unsupported filesystems (as
renameat2 requires collaboration from the FS layer). It is also fixed in
version 0.9.0.
If 0.9.0 does not arrive in time for the merge freeze, I tentatively
backported these two fixes to 0.8.0. A test branch in
https://code.launchpad.net/~aittner/ubuntu/+source/capnproto/+git/capnproto/+ref/backport-
upstream-fixes
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to capnproto in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1961425
Title:
22.04: FTBFS due to test failure
Status in The Ubuntu-power-systems project:
New
Status in capnproto package in Ubuntu:
Confirmed
Bug description:
Hi,
capnproto 0.8.0-2ubuntu1 fails on ppc64el :
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/capnproto/0.8.0-2ubuntu1/+build/23090234/+files/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-ppc64el.capnproto_0.8.0-2ubuntu1_BUILDING.txt.gz
Lowering optimization (O3->O2) level makes the failing test pass, for
instance adding
export DEB_CXXFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND=-O1
export DEB_CXXFLAGS_MAINT_STRIP=-O3
in debian/rules.
For the time being that can be the way to go as 0.9.1-2 from Debian
Experimental
builds fine on Jammy by default with O3.
F.
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-power-systems/+bug/1961425/+subscriptions
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Touch-packages] [Bug 1939413] Re: /usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libprotobuf.a’ generated with LTO version 9.2 instead of the expected 11.0
I was running a few test builds with different combinations of gcc, elfutils and protobuf and trying to make the build fail... but it continues working despite the older elfutils compiled with the newer gcc. Last check was with protobuf-3.12.4-1ubuntu3 (from jammy, 4 days ago) in an impish 0.185-1build1 and then downgraded to a 0.183-8 built with 11.2.0-7ubuntu2 (from impish), but it still does not trigger the issue despite the mismatches. I still could not find the reason. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to protobuf in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1939413 Title: /usr/lib/aarch64-linux-gnu/libprotobuf.a’ generated with LTO version 9.2 instead of the expected 11.0 Status in elfutils package in Ubuntu: New Status in mozc package in Ubuntu: Invalid Status in protobuf package in Ubuntu: Triaged Bug description: When trying to build package mozc for arm64 the following error popped up: lto1: fatal error: bytecode stream in file ‘/usr/lib/aarch64-linux- gnu/libprotobuf.a’ generated with LTO version 9.2 instead of the expected 11.0 Why does the library contain LTO information at all? Best regards Heinrich To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/elfutils/+bug/1939413/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
