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

Re: PowerPC daily install CDs? [Was: Re: Netinst for testing?]

On Mon, 2009-10-26 at 15:55 +0100, Frans Pop wrote: 
> 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.

It does seem like the sort of thing which ought to fail fairly reliably
if it fails.

> > 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
> 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 it's quite possible that the buildds are simply outdated.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.

I tried downgrading binutils, as you suggested in your next mail, to from testing and still saw no issues.

The issue seems to have started between 
http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/images/20090930-19:15 and
http://people.debian.org/~joeyh/d-i/images/20091024-21:59/ which is
unfortunately a rather large range.

Apart from the version currently in testing binutils seems to have had
one other version uploaded in that period ( but in
the absence of snapshot.debian.net I don't think I can get hold of it.

mklibs doesn't seem to have changed since early August which seems to
rule it out.

> > 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.

I believe it does:

$ objdump -T tmp/netboot-gtk/tree/lib/libc.so.6 | grep nss_files_parse
00056a30 g    DF .text 000002ed  GLIBC_PRIVATE _nss_files_parse_pwent
0007c880 g    DF .text 000003cf  GLIBC_PRIVATE _nss_files_parse_sgent
00055900 g    DF .text 0000030e  GLIBC_PRIVATE _nss_files_parse_grent
0007c3f0 g    DF .text 000003d3  GLIBC_PRIVATE _nss_files_parse_spent

> > 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".

Originally I wondered if one of the extra udebs was introducing an extra
dependency on the symbol which I wasn't finding because the extraudebs
dir is deleted after it is used. This turned out not to be the case

> > 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.

Indeed, it seems to have resolved itself now.


Ian Campbell

'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky!
		-- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: