Hi Bjorn,
I've noticed that you excluded arm from the build architectures. iirc it was built successfully and was able to build all other packages as well. What happened to ARM? We should support all primary arches including arm.
-- Pavel
Pavel Zhukov wrote:
I've noticed that you excluded arm from the build architectures. iirc it was built successfully and was able to build all other packages as well. What happened to ARM? We should support all primary arches including arm.
When I rebuilt XMLada to get a static library I naturally also got a new build of the shared library, and that turned out to be broken on ARM. It crashes with a segmentation fault if it's been built with gcc-5.3.1-3.fc24 or gcc-5.3.1-2.fc23, but it works if built with gcc-5.1.1-4.fc23. I haven't tracked the bug down completely, but currently it looks like a compiler bug. I did a scratch build before I committed the changes, and the build succeeded, but I may have neglected to test that the library from the scratch build actually worked on an ARM machine.
Once a package is in Rawhide there is no turning back, and as GPRbuild on ARM is still dynamically linked to XMLada, the broken package makes further rebuilds impossible. I'll have to bootstrap GPRbuild with a precompiled binary to get things working again, and that doesn't have to be done before GCC 6 lands. It may even be better to wait, if GCC 6 doesn't have the bug.
Therefore I excluded ARM temporarily to at least get GPRbuild statically linked for x86 and x86-64, so that I won't have to bootstrap those too.
Björn
Well. It's pity to read you've decided to throw away my effort to compile packages on ARM. Do we have FESCo approval for static libraries by any chance?
27.01.2016, 15:05, "Björn Persson" <Bjorn@rombobjörn.se>:
Pavel Zhukov wrote:
I've noticed that you excluded arm from the build architectures. iirc it was built successfully and was able to build all other packages as well. What happened to ARM? We should support all primary arches including arm.
When I rebuilt XMLada to get a static library I naturally also got a new build of the shared library, and that turned out to be broken on ARM. It crashes with a segmentation fault if it's been built with gcc-5.3.1-3.fc24 or gcc-5.3.1-2.fc23, but it works if built with gcc-5.1.1-4.fc23. I haven't tracked the bug down completely, but currently it looks like a compiler bug. I did a scratch build before I committed the changes, and the build succeeded, but I may have neglected to test that the library from the scratch build actually worked on an ARM machine.
Once a package is in Rawhide there is no turning back, and as GPRbuild on ARM is still dynamically linked to XMLada, the broken package makes further rebuilds impossible. I'll have to bootstrap GPRbuild with a precompiled binary to get things working again, and that doesn't have to be done before GCC 6 lands. It may even be better to wait, if GCC 6 doesn't have the bug.
Therefore I excluded ARM temporarily to at least get GPRbuild statically linked for x86 and x86-64, so that I won't have to bootstrap those too.
Björn
-- Pavel
Pavel Zhukov pavel@zhukoff.net wrote:
Well. It's pity to read you've decided to throw away my effort to compile packages on ARM.
Your effort isn't wasted. I could use the existing ARM packages to build a statically linked GPRbuild on a machine where I can downgrade packages as needed, which I can't do in Koji. I should be able to use this executable to get it working on ARM again without cross-compiling (unless compiler bugs prevent it).
Do we have FESCo approval for static libraries by any chance?
Not by formal decision in a meeting (yet).
I posted to the devel list, showed how I came to the conclusion that linking GPRbuild statically is the only practical solution, and stated my intent to do so. Nobody objected.
Björn
Hi Bjorn,
Thank you very much for your effort with building gprbuild and dealing with FESCo. I really appreciate it. I'll return to active packaging maintaining very soon. I promise!
-
Björn Persson -
Pavel Zhukov