From dam at opencsw.org Mon Dec 5 17:08:32 2016 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 17:08:32 +0100 Subject: amd53 on solaris 9 In-Reply-To: <58458B4F.8000903@opencsw.org> References: <58458AA0.5090302@opencsw.org> <79B34A91-1A29-474A-A801-007E6147FAB0@opencsw.org> <58458B4F.8000903@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <7F28450F-2CA2-4897-8BCB-3F5921369BE2@opencsw.org> Hi Riccardo, Am 05.12.2016 um 16:44 schrieb Riccardo Mottola : > Dagobert Michelsen wrote: >>> I think I remember that you would "tweak" this since this build is useless and at most there is a trick that on package assembly the 10x-amd64 packages are copied in to satisfy package check, but since solaris9x is only 1386, it should not fail on a "mgar build", right? >> Yes, if you are buildig Solaris 9 and Solaris 10 with 64 bit enabled, than Solaris 9 should >> not include 64 bit. > > but can you fix that in mgar or is that a bug in my receipe? I think it was the frist case. A general fix needs some effort to get a combined view for all Solaris releases packages are build for. As the problem is rather specific I suggest you just skip this one modulation manually: # Solaris 9 package does not contain 64 bit on i386 as we have a separate Solaris 10 package SKIP_MODULATIONS-5.9 += isa-amd64 SKIP_MODULATIONS = $(SKIP_MODULATIONS-$(GAROSREL)) Best regards ? Dago -- "You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de Mon Dec 5 18:00:08 2016 From: Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 18:00:08 +0100 Subject: amd53 on solaris 9 In-Reply-To: <7F28450F-2CA2-4897-8BCB-3F5921369BE2@opencsw.org> References: <58458AA0.5090302@opencsw.org> <79B34A91-1A29-474A-A801-007E6147FAB0@opencsw.org> <58458B4F.8000903@opencsw.org> <7F28450F-2CA2-4897-8BCB-3F5921369BE2@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <58459d18.BLZaYGskwsEDfJXf%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Dagobert Michelsen via maintainers wrote: > # Solaris 9 package does not contain 64 bit on i386 as we have a separate Solaris 10 package > SKIP_MODULATIONS-5.9 += isa-amd64 > SKIP_MODULATIONS = $(SKIP_MODULATIONS-$(GAROSREL)) Solaris with amd64 support first appeared in August 2004 - half a year before FCS of Solaris 10. There is no amd64 support for Solaris 9 AFAIK. J?rg -- EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/' From dam at opencsw.org Mon Dec 5 20:30:05 2016 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2016 20:30:05 +0100 Subject: amd53 on solaris 9 In-Reply-To: <58459d18.BLZaYGskwsEDfJXf%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <58458AA0.5090302@opencsw.org> <79B34A91-1A29-474A-A801-007E6147FAB0@opencsw.org> <58458B4F.8000903@opencsw.org> <7F28450F-2CA2-4897-8BCB-3F5921369BE2@opencsw.org> <58459d18.BLZaYGskwsEDfJXf%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <623DFD8E-036E-4AE8-A7ED-A2B75251915C@opencsw.org> Hi J?rg, Am 05.12.2016 um 18:00 schrieb Joerg Schilling : > Dagobert Michelsen via maintainers wrote: > >> # Solaris 9 package does not contain 64 bit on i386 as we have a separate Solaris 10 package >> SKIP_MODULATIONS-5.9 += isa-amd64 >> SKIP_MODULATIONS = $(SKIP_MODULATIONS-$(GAROSREL)) > > Solaris with amd64 support first appeared in August 2004 - half a year before > FCS of Solaris 10. There is no amd64 support for Solaris 9 AFAIK. Correct. But at some time in the past when we only packaged for Solaris 9 the packages for i386 contained also 64 bit amd64 binaries built on Solaris 10 and packaged up in a combined package marked for Solaris 9. The amd64 part would be ignored and only used when installed on Solaris 10. This was already in place when I joined Blastwave in 2007. When building for Solaris 9 and also for Solaris 10 this is of course pointless :-) Best regards ? Dago From rmottola at opencsw.org Tue Dec 6 11:59:27 2016 From: rmottola at opencsw.org (Riccardo Mottola) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 11:59:27 +0100 Subject: amd53 on solaris 9 In-Reply-To: <58459d18.BLZaYGskwsEDfJXf%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <58458AA0.5090302@opencsw.org> <79B34A91-1A29-474A-A801-007E6147FAB0@opencsw.org> <58458B4F.8000903@opencsw.org> <7F28450F-2CA2-4897-8BCB-3F5921369BE2@opencsw.org> <58459d18.BLZaYGskwsEDfJXf%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> Message-ID: <58469A0F.4030705@opencsw.org> Hi, Joerg Schilling wrote: >> # Solaris 9 package does not contain 64 bit on i386 as we have a separate Solaris 10 package >> >SKIP_MODULATIONS-5.9 += isa-amd64 >> >SKIP_MODULATIONS = $(SKIP_MODULATIONS-$(GAROSREL)) > Solaris with amd64 support first appeared in August 2004 - half a year before > FCS of Solaris 10. There is no amd64 support for Solaris 9 AFAIK. well, exactly, that is the point: solaris 9 has no amd64 support at all. Thus "mgar build" on solaris9 intel shouldn't "fail" by saying that amd64 is not a supported ISA, since it makes no sense. Dagobert's trick does work, but I wonder if it is now needed for every single packages available for solaris 9? Riccardo From dam at opencsw.org Tue Dec 6 13:01:51 2016 From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 13:01:51 +0100 Subject: amd53 on solaris 9 In-Reply-To: <58469A0F.4030705@opencsw.org> References: <58458AA0.5090302@opencsw.org> <79B34A91-1A29-474A-A801-007E6147FAB0@opencsw.org> <58458B4F.8000903@opencsw.org> <7F28450F-2CA2-4897-8BCB-3F5921369BE2@opencsw.org> <58459d18.BLZaYGskwsEDfJXf%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> <58469A0F.4030705@opencsw.org> Message-ID: <6D69FDF1-D57E-40F2-BC81-E616F677FDAB@opencsw.org> Hi Riccardo, Am 06.12.2016 um 11:59 schrieb Riccardo Mottola : > Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> # Solaris 9 package does not contain 64 bit on i386 as we have a separate Solaris 10 package >>> >SKIP_MODULATIONS-5.9 += isa-amd64 >>> >SKIP_MODULATIONS = $(SKIP_MODULATIONS-$(GAROSREL)) >> Solaris with amd64 support first appeared in August 2004 - half a year before >> FCS of Solaris 10. There is no amd64 support for Solaris 9 AFAIK. > > well, exactly, that is the point: solaris 9 has no amd64 support at all. > Thus "mgar build" on solaris9 intel shouldn't "fail" by saying that amd64 is not a supported ISA, since it makes no sense. > > Dagobert's trick does work, but I wonder if it is now needed for every single packages available for solaris 9? ?that has 64 bit enabled, yes. You can look in /etc/opt/csw/garrc for details: > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris9-sparc-32 = unstable9s > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris9-sparc-64 = unstable9s > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris10-sparc-32 = unstable10s > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris10-sparc-64 = unstable10s > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris11-sparc-32 = unstable11s > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris11-sparc-64 = unstable11s > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris9-i386-32 = unstable9x > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris9-i386-64 = unstable10x > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris10-i386-32 = unstable10x > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris10-i386-64 = unstable10x > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris11-i386-32 = unstable11x > BUILDHOST_platform-solaris11-i386-64 = unstable11x BTW, I try to reproduce your issue but I didn?t get to the point where 64 bit would kick in: > ld.so.1: composite: fatal: relocation error: file /home/dam/mgar/pkg/pixman/trunk/work/solaris9-i386/build-isa-i386/pixman-0.22.2/pixman/.libs/libpixman-1.so.0: symbol ___tls_get_addr: referenced symbol not found > FAIL: composite > ============================================= > 15 of 18 tests failed > Please report to pixman at lists.freedesktop.org > ============================================= Best regards ? Dago -- "You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 841 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: