Re: help? efivar 0.20-3 fails to build on arm64
+++ D. Jared Dominguez [2015-06-24 15:47 -0500]:
> So I just got an email about efivar 0.20-3 failing to build only on
> arm64. See the log here:
>
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=efivar&arch=arm64&ver=0.20-3&stamp=1435172463
>
> I notice that the failure happens in dh_auto_test:
> """
> dh_auto_test -a
> make -j1 test
> make[3]: Entering directory '/«PKGBUILDDIR»/src/test'
> ./tester
> FAIL: "one"(line 111) (-1) set test failed: Permission denied
> About to test one
> testing efi_set_variable()
> make[3]: *** [test] Error 1
>
>
> But then I looked at the log for 0.20-2:
>
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=efivar&arch=arm64&ver=0.20-2&stamp=1435096092
>
> """
> dh_auto_test -a
> make -j1 test
> make[3]: Entering directory '/«PKGBUILDDIR»/src/test'
> ./tester
> UEFI variables not supported on this machine.
>
> Well, okay, and it seems that generally builds succeed when the
> arm64 system doesn't support UEFI variables:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=efivar&arch=arm64
>
> So then, I've got questions:
> 1. Are some of the arm64 buildd's UEFI-enabled and some not? If so,
> should they actually be segmented?
0.20-2 built on arm-linaro-03 which is an APM Mustang.
0.20-3 built on arm-arm-01 which is ARM Juno.
That APM box still uses uboot. Juno uses UEFI. So I guess that
explains the problem. I believe that UEFI support for the APM hardware
does exist now, but those are early machines. I'm not sure if there is
a plan to upgrade them as mostly it doesn't matter.
Given that this package is correctly skipping the test on the non-UEFI
machine, the correct fix would seem to be to fix the test on the UEFI
machine.
> 2. Would someone involved in the arm64 port be willing to look at
> this build issue? Alternatively, I would need access to an arm64
> system.
Yep, we can have a look at this. Can you explina what the test is
testing? That should help debug it.
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM
http://wookware.org/
Reply to: