Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 22:56:36 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> Cc: Nuno Teixeira <eduardo@freebsd.org>, "Hurling, Rainer" <rhurlin@freebsd.org>, Dimitry Andric <dim@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: poudriere loop: llvm19-19.1.7: missed shlib PORTREVISION chase Message-ID: <r64nqrgxikqq6atzpzylbyfgrgrkz2bevl2tblpqjdilqkksuw@6vmkldhsi42u> In-Reply-To: <lvhulcaznwjrfnchozithatlvc5a2otkpdrlee4gvrua2qwda2@ufumkjdfzkdk> References: <CAFDf7UL6icbdu5705GFhvy3Lx5Qf4mAO9LkLp3nS=i8CMOZmBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAFDf7U%2B76qtxaQZsLbS6ppg39=GofXLncnRB_MxJREe0NMuJwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFDf7U%2BGmUucAgq0y_ukRrWeJ5gW6Sb4pas55hEpyD36WLUwKw@mail.gmail.com> <68bbf05d-1d4a-4819-bb83-be6c4f002a63@gwdg.de> <CAFDf7UJ14XS7oAVjo1pcj_fqTx=PQZd3P=nQLVBkbzD0nU8X8w@mail.gmail.com> <7fb64cac-9b09-4235-9235-2bfb6c228442@gwdg.de> <CAFDf7UKT4DqT1i9aQxcM3X3bYkHVbGTxwvXxn_Lg5jNXYoOVHQ@mail.gmail.com> <4de598b1-a576-4ac6-949c-63d1065d818d@madpilot.net> <iqazj5j5pjg3kws54y3xpt72frcaslexxvzqdacsrgpt6ftemy@vvqhzxhg7oxn> <lvhulcaznwjrfnchozithatlvc5a2otkpdrlee4gvrua2qwda2@ufumkjdfzkdk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat 01 Feb 22:40, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Fri 31 Jan 19:13, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Fri 31 Jan 18:18, Guido Falsi wrote: > > > On 27/01/25 10:56, Nuno Teixeira wrote: > > > > Hello Rainer, > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't this be the right time to get Bapt@ involved? After all, he has > > > > > worked intensively on the pkg updates. > > > > > > > > Yes it is. I'm CC'ing bapt@. > > > > > > Since this issue was pestering me while testing multiple ports with > > > unnecessarily lengthy rebuilds I took a look. > > > > > > I have posted a pull request for poudriere [1] with a fix/workaround that > > > works for me and allows me to have a functional build machine. > > > > > > I'm not sure if this fix is completely correct, but maybe it can be useful > > > to other people as a work around. > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/pull/1204 > > > > > > -- > > > Guido Falsi <mad@madpilot.net> > > > > at quick glance it sounds like a bug in pkg I ll have a look at it next week > > > > Bapt > > > > After deeper analysis, I figure pkg is right and each time it claims a need for > After a deeper analysis: > 32bits libs, they are actually needed. for reported ports, I think the > PKG_NO_VERSION_FOR_DEPS=yes does not work yet with newer pkg version. > > I have found while analysing to potential bug at pkg install time for people not > using pkgbase, which I will work on fixing, not nothing wrong regarding the :32 > handling at pkg build time (aka what you face in poudriere). > > I may be wrong, but I am not sure I am. > > For people who haven't notice one of the major change of pkg 2.x is tracking 32 > bit libraries (and potentially linux one, off for now) AND tracking base > libraries always. > > After a deeper analysis: > My understanding if poudriere with PKG_NO_VERSION_FOR_DEPS=yes would work ok as > if, if the building jail was built using pkgbase. > > What poudriere lacks for the options if gathering base libaries to consider them > as provided. > > Note that pkg at runtime if not running on a system install using pkgbase, will > scan for base libraries. (Note this is where I found the bug I am interesting > in: it does not scan for 32bit libraries yet, which make pkg check -d unhappy) > > Best regards, > Bapt > And I was wrong about the pkg install bug, we do scan for 32bit livraries, so everything should be fine.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?r64nqrgxikqq6atzpzylbyfgrgrkz2bevl2tblpqjdilqkksuw>