[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: nodejs package issues

CCing the list since others might like to see where we are at on
Debian Alpha.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 03:43:02AM -0600, Bob Tracy wrote:
> The list of held packages was once again starting to get uncomfortably
> long, so I took a dive into the swamp to see what was gumming up the
> works.  There's a new (?) dependency in the various "plasma-*" packages
> on "nodejs", and attempting to build "nodejs-4.7.2~dfsg" uncovered a few
> issues.

OK, I hadn't seen that because been working on kernel and
binutils/glibc bugs.  If you build your own kernel make sure you
revert commit 6cd9dc3e75078ef646076fa63adfb9b85ced0b66, as it leads
to random segfaults in user space. [1]

> First one is a circular dependency on "node-marked" and "node-yamlish".

So there is a dependency loop between nodejs and node-yamlish, thus
nodejs will need manual building and uploading.

> Next issue is the "-m32" argument getting passed to the compiler.  Not
> appropriate for Alpha. 

That's a bug that should be reported to the package maintainer.

I've got bigger fish to fry at the moment.  In particular a
binutils/glibc bug that is causing segfaults in the dynamic symbol
resolver.  Try this: write a simple "Hello world" program in C.
Compile with "-Wl,-z,now" linker option which causes the dynamic
loader to resolve all symbols at program invocation, rather than
resolving symbols when first used.  If compiled with a recent
toolchain it segfaults [2]. That is holding up re-building quite a
few packages because (recent?) configure scripts use the -Wl,-z,now
option when testing to see if the C compiler can generate working
executables!  A segfaulting executable is not (unsurprisingly)
considered a working executable by configure!


[1] And if you run the Debian kernel you should consider building
your own kernel with that commit reverted.

[2] Toolchain gcc 4:6.1.1-1, binutils 2.27-8 produces a working
executable, but toolchains later than gcc 4:6.2.1-1, binutils are known to be bad.

Reply to: