ld has been inconsistently upgraded on the buildfarm

[Yann Rouillard via buildfarm]

No significant answer from Oracle for 3 weeks now.
I am asking for update on a weekly basis but I don't have matter to
increase the priority of this issue as there is not production impact and
an easy workaround.

I do think we will eventually get an answer.

Yann



2013/12/12 Dagobert Michelsen via buildfarm <buildfarm at lists.opencsw.org>

> Hi Jake,
>
> Am 12.12.2013 um 19:53 schrieb Jake Goerzen via buildfarm:
> > On 11/13/13 06:16, Dagobert Michelsen via buildfarm wrote:
> >> Am 13.11.2013 um 10:03 schrieb Laurent Blume via buildfarm <
> buildfarm at lists.opencsw.org>:
> >>> Regularly, I'm having silly issues with linking on the buildfarm with
> different behaviour on x86 and sparc.
> >>> This time, in krb5-lib: with the same recipe, some binaries get linked
> to libintl.so on unstable10s, and they don't on unstable10x.
> >>> On my home system, x86, they do get linked.
> >>>
> >>> I'm noticing that ld on the buildfarm is not at all consistent:
> >>>
> >>> At home:
> >>> -rwxr-xr-x   1 root     bin        10300 janv 14  2013 /usr/ccs/bin/ld
> >>>
> >>> unstable10s:
> >>> $ ls -l /usr/ccs/bin/ld
> >>> -rwxr-xr-x   1 root     bin        10788 Jan 16  2013 /usr/ccs/bin/ld
> >>>
> >>> unstable10x:
> >>> $ ls -l /usr/ccs/bin/ld
> >>> -rwxr-xr-x   1 root     bin        10172 Jul  4  2011 /usr/ccs/bin/ld
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Since it's part of the kernel patch, I gather that unstable10x was
> kept back for some reason, as its kernel is older.
> >>>
> >>> Can unstable10x be upgraded? I am reasonably sure it would fix some of
> the linking issues I'm hitting right now.
> >>
> >> I would prefer not to unless we fully understand the issue as discussed
> on irc.
> >
> > Hi Dago,
> >
> > Has there been any update on the issue of ld being inconsistent on the
> buildfarm yet?  I have been putting off working on some things until a
> resolution has been found.
>
> Yann has a case open at Oracle, but I doubt we get anything useful out of
> it.
> For now I recommend just adding the extra deps and unconditionally
> overriding
> them for i386. For mid-term William told me he will get some T5220 and he
> would
> be willing to give one to the project. This would allow me another
> build-only
> machine which is not going to be updated. Then we could also really stick
> to
> u8 (or u5?) for all packaging zones. But don't expect this before q2 2014.
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience
>
>   -- Dago
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/buildfarm/attachments/20131212/b1fbb198/attachment.html>