Bug#962441: RFS: siconos/4.3.0+dfsg-1 [RC] -- modeling and simulation of nonsmooth dynamical systems (simulation runner tool)
The problem turned out to be a real bug (null dereference) that only
occurred occasionally due to poor testing procedures (test includes
some randomization in the code path).
The bug has been patched and a separate RFS for fclib has been filed, #962684.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:09 PM Stephen Sinclair <email@example.com> wrote:
> Hi Adam,
> Thanks for taking a look.
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:29 PM Adam Borowski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 07:37:26AM +0200, Stephen Sinclair wrote:
> > > * Package name : siconos
> > > Version : 4.3.0+dfsg-1
> > But
> > > Testing this package requires fclib 3.1.0+dfsg-1, which also needs
> > > sponsorship. It can be found here:
> > >
> > > https://mentors.debian.net/package/fclib
> > so thats actually two RFSes in one. And there are problems with fclib.
> I'm not sure what the right protocol is in this case, to be honest.
> Should I have issued two RFSes or done this one differently?
> > > Changes since the last upload:
> > >
> > > * New upstream version. (Closes: #962219) (Closes: #961735)
> > > * Add dependencies libboost-timer-dev, libboost-chrono-dev.
> > > * Depend on openblas and lapacke instead of atlas.
> > > * Require fclib 3.1.0
> > > * Update location of install paths.
> > > * Enable WITH_GENERATION, now required for serialization.
> > > * Install new siconos_export_raw_data tool.
> > > * Fix cmake import targets to allow independent packages.
> > > * Update patches for new upstream version.
> > > * Add a flag for gfortran to avoid a regression in GCC-10.
> > > (Closes: #957794)
> > > * Remove unused build rule for swig3.0 symlink.
> > > * Remove non-existent files from debian/copyright.
> > > * Rewrite patch descriptions using gbp pq.
> > > * Fix a Python warning about using 'is' with a literal.
> > It looked ok on my box, and passed both all automated and manual review I've
> > done. But, it fails on some of official buildds: at least on amd64 arm64
> > x32.
> > I seem unable to reproduce the FTBFS locally -- in 15 tries on amd64, 1 on
> > arm64, all passed.
> > Thus, you'd need to investigate and fix that one in fclib first.
> I'm very confused about the error on buildd because I have indeed
> built the package many times with a fresh debootstrap without such a
> segfault. I will investigate and try to reproduce.
> I did my best to avoid problems but it seems I have missed something,
> I'd like to understand the difference between buildd and my own
> configuration to avoid this happening in the future.
> By the way Siconos due to its nature has been quite hard to get
> working on any architecture other than amd64 unfortunately. Is there
> a way to mark the package as amd64-only?
> In the meantime I try to find solutions for other architectures but it
> is slow going.
> > It'd be good if you filed a separate RFS for that. Let's leave this one
> > for siconos 4.3.0+dfsg-1
> Okay that sounds like a reasonable approach given this problem.