rpms/ruby FTBFS with autoconf 2.71

[Jun Aruga]

Just FYI
It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the
following build.

https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282
autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36

I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the
stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.

-- 
Jun | He - Him

[Mamoru TASAKA]

Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
>  Just FYI
>  It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the
>  following build.
>  
>  https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282
>  autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
>  
>  I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the
>  stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
>   
I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156

Regards,
Mamoru

[Jun Aruga]

On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:52 AM Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
>  > Just FYI
>  > It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the
>  > following build.
>  >
>  > https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282
>  > autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
>  >
>  > I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the
>  > stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
>  >
>
>  I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream:
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479
>  https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156 
OK. Thanks for the info!

-- 
Jun | He - Him

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 28. 09. 21 v 1:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
>  Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
> > Just FYI
> > It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the
> > following build.
> >
> > https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282
> > autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
> >
> > I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the
> > stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
> >
>
>  I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream:
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479
>  https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156 

Right, I hoped for some upstream response, but my plan is to reintroduce 
the `AC_PROG_CC` if there is no response. Hopefully I get back to this 
soon, because we should look into the OpenSSL 3.x compatibility.


Vít


>  Regards,
>  Mamoru
>  _______________________________________________
>  ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave(a)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/[e-mail]...
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Jun Aruga]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Dne 28. 09. 21 v 1:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
>  > Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
>  >> Just FYI
>  >> It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the
>  >> following build.
>  >>
>  >> https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282
>  >> autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
>  >>
>  >> I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the
>  >> stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
>  >>
>  >
>  > I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream:
>  > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479
>  > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156
>
>
>  Right, I hoped for some upstream response, but my plan is to reintroduce
>  the `AC_PROG_CC` if there is no response. Hopefully I get back to this
>  soon, because we should look into the OpenSSL 3.x compatibility. 
It seems the following patch for the ruby.spec works to build
rpms/ruby on rawhide. Now building is in progress in my environment.
But maybe we don't want to add the gcc-c++ dependency?

```
$ git diff
diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec
index 414eb19..c5c6edc 100644
--- a/ruby.spec
+++ b/ruby.spec
@@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ BuildRequires: procps
 %{?with_hostname:BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/hostname}
 BuildRequires: multilib-rpm-config
 BuildRequires: gcc
+BuildRequires: gcc-c++
 BuildRequires: make
 BuildRequires: zlib-devel

@@ -619,7 +620,7 @@ rm -rf ext/fiddle/libffi*
 cp -a %{SOURCE3} .

 %build
-autoconf
+./autogen.sh

 %configure \
         --with-rubylibprefix='%{ruby_libdir}' \
```

-- 
Jun | He - Him

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 29. 09. 21 v 14:26 Jun Aruga napsal(a):
>  On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch
> <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> > Dne 28. 09. 21 v 1:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
> >> Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
> >>> Just FYI
> >>> It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the
> >>> following build.
> >>>
> >>> https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282
> >>> autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
> >>>
> >>> I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the
> >>> stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
> >>>
> >> I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream:
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479
> >> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156
> >
> > Right, I hoped for some upstream response, but my plan is to reintroduce
> > the `AC_PROG_CC` if there is no response. Hopefully I get back to this
> > soon, because we should look into the OpenSSL 3.x compatibility.
>  It seems the following patch for the ruby.spec works to build
>  rpms/ruby on rawhide. Now building is in progress in my environment.
>  But maybe we don't want to add the gcc-c++ dependency?
>
>  ```
>  $ git diff
>  diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec
>  index 414eb19..c5c6edc 100644
>  --- a/ruby.spec
>  +++ b/ruby.spec
>  @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ BuildRequires: procps
>    %{?with_hostname:BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/hostname}
>    BuildRequires: multilib-rpm-config
>    BuildRequires: gcc
>  +BuildRequires: gcc-c++ 

I already had discussion on this topic previously:

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17337

IOW there were attempts to enforce availability of C++ but the patches 
were reverted. And I think there was more, but I can't find the references.


>    BuildRequires: make
>    BuildRequires: zlib-devel
>
>  @@ -619,7 +620,7 @@ rm -rf ext/fiddle/libffi*
>    cp -a %{SOURCE3} .
>
>    %build
>  -autoconf
>  +./autogen.sh
>
>    %configure \
>            --with-rubylibprefix='%{ruby_libdir}' \
>  ```
>  
I am not autotols expert, but `autogen.sh` does not do more then 
`autoreconf` and as far as I remember, I have tried autoreconf but I 
have opted to not use it for some (forgotten) reason. Moreover:

1) The upstream tarball contains the config.{guess,sub} files

2) The `%{configure}` macro replaces the config.{guess,sub} files during 
build

Therefore you would need some convincing arguments.


Vít

[Jun Aruga]

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 5:50 PM Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Dne 29. 09. 21 v 14:26 Jun Aruga napsal(a):
>  > On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:42 PM Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Dne 28. 09. 21 v 1:51 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
>  >>> Jun Aruga wrote on 2021/09/28 1:54:
>  >>>> Just FYI
>  >>>> It seems the rpms/ruby rawhide started to fail to build from the
>  >>>> following build.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/11069282
>  >>>> autoconf: 2.69-37.fc35 => 2.71-1.fc36
>  >>>>
>  >>>> I noticed this when I also saw the build started to fail on the
>  >>>> stream-ruby-2.6 branch too.
>  >>>>
>  >>> I think Vít has already noticed this and contacted the upstream:
>  >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999479
>  >>> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156
>  >>
>  >> Right, I hoped for some upstream response, but my plan is to reintroduce
>  >> the `AC_PROG_CC` if there is no response. Hopefully I get back to this
>  >> soon, because we should look into the OpenSSL 3.x compatibility.
>  > It seems the following patch for the ruby.spec works to build
>  > rpms/ruby on rawhide. Now building is in progress in my environment.
>  > But maybe we don't want to add the gcc-c++ dependency?
>  >
>  > ```
>  > $ git diff
>  > diff --git a/ruby.spec b/ruby.spec
>  > index 414eb19..c5c6edc 100644
>  > --- a/ruby.spec
>  > +++ b/ruby.spec
>  > @@ -188,6 +188,7 @@ BuildRequires: procps
>  >   %{?with_hostname:BuildRequires: %{_bindir}/hostname}
>  >   BuildRequires: multilib-rpm-config
>  >   BuildRequires: gcc
>  > +BuildRequires: gcc-c++
>
>
>  I already had discussion on this topic previously:
>
>  https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17337
>
>  IOW there were attempts to enforce availability of C++ but the patches
>  were reverted. And I think there was more, but I can't find the references. 
OK. Thanks for pointing out the ticket. I did read it now.
I admit the `+BuildRequires: gcc-c++` is a wrong way to fix. In this
case, requiring C++ compiler happens with autoconf 2.71, but doesn't
happen with the 2.69. So, it is kind of a bug.

Fortunately the Ruby developer syouhei agreed on your way to fix this
issue adding `AC_PROG_CC`. Also talking with nobu today, he told me
that he didn't want to add the C++ compiler requirement.
So, we can expect the upstream is going to fix it.
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18156#note-8

>  >   BuildRequires: make
>  >   BuildRequires: zlib-devel
>  >
>  > @@ -619,7 +620,7 @@ rm -rf ext/fiddle/libffi*
>  >   cp -a %{SOURCE3} .
>  >
>  >   %build
>  > -autoconf
>  > +./autogen.sh
>  >
>  >   %configure \
>  >           --with-rubylibprefix='%{ruby_libdir}' \
>  > ```
>  >
>
>  I am not autotols expert, but `autogen.sh` does not do more then
>  `autoreconf` and as far as I remember, I have tried autoreconf but I
>  have opted to not use it for some (forgotten) reason. Moreover:
>
>  1) The upstream tarball contains the config.{guess,sub} files 
I see I missed this point. We don't need to run the `./autogen.sh` or
`autoreconf`.
I think using `autogen.sh` makes the ruby.spec unnecessarily complicated.
In older Rubies, there is no `autogen.sh` in the tarball. Using the
`autogen.sh` also makes it harder to check the difference from older
Ruby's ruby.spec.

>  2) The `%{configure}` macro replaces the config.{guess,sub} files
> during
>  build 
OK. I didn't know that.

>  Therefore you would need some convincing arguments. 
OK.

-- 
Jun | He - Him