Re: PowerPC daily install CDs? [Was: Re: Netinst for testing?]
Thanks for making an effort to look into this.
On Monday 26 October 2009, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Thanks. I still cannot reproduce so I am somewhat clutching at straws. I
> compared the logs for a local (successful) i386 run of the daily-build
> script vs. the logs from
> http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/build-logs.html
In the past I've always been able to reproduce mklibs errors.
> I've been concentrating on the netboot-gtk log and the differences are
> really rather small up until the failure point. The output from apt
> and/or dpkg differs a little -- I wonder if the build environment is not
> completely up to date and has a buggy (or just slightly differing in
> behaviour) version of one or the other? Seems unlikely to have effected
> so many build servers though (seemingly admin'd by several different
> people). FWIW I'm running apt 0.7.24 and dpkg 1.15.4.1.
If you cannot reproduce it with an up-to-date sid build environment then
it's quite possible that the buildds are simply outdated.
apt and dpkg are not really relevant here. More relevant are versions of
mklibs itself and packages like binutils.
> The symbol _nss_files_parse_sgent is provided by /lib/libc.so.6 and
> required by /lib/libnss_files.so.2. Both libraries are part of libc.
Does libc.so.6 provide the exact symbol looked for (I'd expect it does)?
In that case this looks like an mklibs/binutils issue.
> Comparing a manual "make build_netboot-gtk" with the daily-build logs
> (either my local ones or the build server ones), I see this which seems
> odd:
[...]
That is indeed strange and should be looked into, but I doubt it is related
to the mklibs failure as neither libc6 nor libnss-files are "extraudebs".
> Perhaps it would be useful if mklibs printed a bit more detail about
> where and why a symbol is thought to be required if an error occurs?
It can do. The usual way to do that is this change in build/config/common
to make it more verbose:
-MKLIBS = mklibs
+MKLIBS = mklibs -v -v
But that is only really useful if you can reproduce it locally.
> The current version of
> http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/build-logs.html seems to suggest
> even bigger issues though, every arch "failed to download summary log"
Probably just a temporary network problem somewhere.
I'll see if I can do a test build myself today or tomorrow.
Cheers,
FJP
Reply to: