Re: What happens when a port fails to compile (+universal) and there is no maintainer?

[Sriranga Veeraraghavan]

I tried to build jemalloc without +universal on my M1 Mac on Big Sur and did 
not encounter any errors.  When I tried to build it with +universal, I saw the 
same error as in the log file attached to the trac case.  

The clang messages suggest that an express cast will solve the compile problem:

include/jemalloc/internal/rtree.h:118:3: error: constant expression evaluates 
to -12 which cannot be narrowed to type 'unsigned int' [-Wc++11-narrowing]
{RTREE_NSB, RTREE_NHIB + RTREE_NSB}
 ^
include/jemalloc/internal/rtree.h:22:19: note: expanded from macro 'RTREE_NSB'
#define RTREE_NSB (LG_VADDR - RTREE_NLIB)
  ^~~
include/jemalloc/internal/rtree.h:118:3: note: insert an explicit cast to 
silence this issue
{RTREE_NSB, RTREE_NHIB + RTREE_NSB}
 ^
 static_cast( )
 
However, given the nature of the error (converting a negative int to a unsigned 
int), while a cast might get the code to compile, there is probably an 
underlying problem that needs to be fixed for this code to actually work 
properly.

> On Aug 22, 2022, at 18:57, Ken Cunningham  
> wrote:
> 
> it builds OK universal on Monterey Intel:
> 
> % port -v installed jemalloc
> The following ports are currently installed:
>   jemalloc @5.3.0_2+universal (active) requested_variants='+universal' 
> platform='darwin 21' archs='arm64 x86_64' date='2022-08-22T17:31:05-0700’
> 
> 
> There are many combinations and permutations that can make strange things 
> happen.
> 
> If someone else reproduces your universal build failure on an arm Mac, 
> perhaps we can sort it out. Usually we do.
> 
> I don’t have an arm Mac, though, so will defer to someone who does.

Re: What happens when a port fails to compile (+universal) and there is no maintainer?

[Ken Cunningham]

it builds OK universal on Monterey Intel:

% port -v installed jemalloc
The following ports are currently installed:
  jemalloc @5.3.0_2+universal (active) requested_variants='+universal' 
platform='darwin 21' archs='arm64 x86_64' date='2022-08-22T17:31:05-0700’


There are many combinations and permutations that can make strange things 
happen.

If someone else reproduces your universal build failure on an arm Mac, perhaps 
we can sort it out. Usually we do.

I don’t have an arm Mac, though, so will defer to someone who does.

Re: ffmpeg 4.4.2 fails to build

[Terry Barnum]

> On Aug 21, 2022, at 5:17 AM, Christopher Nielsen  
> wrote:
> 
> This has been fixed. Wait at least two hours, then run a selfupdate, followed 
> by an upgrade.

Thank you Chris and Ryan!

-Terry

Re: jemalloc +universal

[Daniel J. Luke]

On Aug 22, 2022, at 1:31 PM, Bill Cole 
 wrote:
> On 2022-08-22 at 10:26:14 UTC-0400 (Mon, 22 Aug 2022 15:26:14 +0100)
>> The auto build build either an arm64 or an x86_64, so seems like no one 
>> would ever know if a +universal build fails.
> 
> It's unclear to me why anyone would need a universal build for something so 
> low-level. Looking *cursorily* at the errors in the log in your bug report, I 
> suspect it may be due to the code not having support for a universal build. 
> You may want to also open an upstream bug, if you can analyze it well enough 
> to determine that upstream fixes are required.

the muniversal portgroup may help here (since it will just run multiple builds 
and lipo them together), but I haven't looked at the jemalloc build to see if 
it would be helpful here (sometimes the build changes needed make it easier to 
just make the project build universal the 'normal' way instead).

-- 
Daniel J. Luke

Re: What happens when a port fails to compile (+universal) and there is no maintainer?

[Bill Cole]

On 2022-08-22 at 10:26:14 UTC-0400 (Mon, 22 Aug 2022 15:26:14 +0100)
Philip Potter 
is rumored to have said:


Hi,

What happens when a port fails to compile (+universal) and there is no 
maintainer?


The failure remains until someone with the right combination of skill 
and motivation fixes it.


I see you opened a bug repoert at https://trac.macports.org/ticket/65671 
so at least it is visible.



ie jemalloc? 

The auto build build either an arm64 or an x86_64, so seems like no 
one would ever know if a +universal build fails.


It's unclear to me why anyone would need a universal build for something 
so low-level. Looking *cursorily* at the errors in the log in your bug 
report, I suspect it may be due to the code not having support for a 
universal build. You may want to also open an upstream bug, if you can 
analyze it well enough to determine that upstream fixes are required.



How or who resolves this kind of issue?


Maybe you? Maybe the upstream developers of jemalloc? Maybe no one? 
MacPorts is run by volunteers and has a very open contribution 
environment. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been any 
meaningful corporate support for the project for many years, so no one 
is really accountable for whether any particular bug is ever fixed.


Note that this is not meant as criticism of the MacPorts project in any 
way. It's the nature of FOSS: much of the work is done by people fixing 
their own issues and sharing the fixes.




--
Bill Cole
b...@scconsult.com or billc...@apache.org
(AKA @grumpybozo and many *@billmail.scconsult.com addresses)
Not Currently Available For Hire

What happens when a port fails to compile (+universal) and there is no maintainer?

[Philip Potter]

Hi,

What happens when a port fails to compile (+universal) and there is no 
maintainer?


ie jemalloc? 

The auto build build either an arm64 or an x86_64, so seems like no one 
would ever know if a +universal build fails.


How or who resolves this kind of issue?

regards

Phil.