Re: frysk-imports/tests ChangeLog Makefile.am frys ...

Re: frysk-imports/tests ChangeLog Makefile.am frys ...

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi jan,

On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 08:52 +0000, jkratoch@sourceware.org wrote:
> 	* frysk4704/vdso-permissions.c: New file.
> 	* Makefile.am (systests_PASS_PROGRAM): Added frysk4704/vdso-permissions.

This requires the system gelf.h, which means the user needs to have
elfutils-libelf-devel installed (on Fedora at least), which is currently
not documentated to be a requirement on our build page
http://sourceware.org/frysk/build/ (which was why I didn't have it
installed on one of my machines here). Does it have to or can it be made
to work with the included elfutil/libelf in frysk-imports?

Cheers,

Mark

Re: frysk-imports/tests ChangeLog Makefile.am frys ...

[Roland McGrath]

Code should be written to expect elfutils headers to be found.  If you are
linking against an in-tree elfutils build, then other things should be
getting -I's appropriately.  The way frysk should be built on Fedora >= 6
is against the installed elfutils.

Re: frysk-imports/tests ChangeLog Makefile.am frys ...

[Kris Van Hees]

The automated builds were being plagued by this as wel (except for the
FC6 x86_64 box that for some reason actually had elfutils-libelf-devel
installed).  I installed that rpm (and dependencies) on the other two
boxes, and things seem to be much happier now.  New runs are in progress
right now, so their results ought to be on the website of the automated
build-and-test system shortly...

	Cheers,
	Kris

On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:23:09PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi jan,
> 
> On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 08:52 +0000, jkratoch@sourceware.org wrote:
> > 	* frysk4704/vdso-permissions.c: New file.
> > 	* Makefile.am (systests_PASS_PROGRAM): Added frysk4704/vdso-permissions.
> 
> This requires the system gelf.h, which means the user needs to have
> elfutils-libelf-devel installed (on Fedora at least), which is currently
> not documentated to be a requirement on our build page
> http://sourceware.org/frysk/build/ (which was why I didn't have it
> installed on one of my machines here). Does it have to or can it be made
> to work with the included elfutil/libelf in frysk-imports?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark
> 

Re: frysk-imports/tests ChangeLog Makefile.am frys ...

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:47:33 +0200, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> The automated builds were being plagued by this as wel (except for the
> FC6 x86_64 box that for some reason actually had elfutils-libelf-devel
> installed).  I installed that rpm (and dependencies)

It looks very fragile to me if the project is able to touch system elfutils
while the same package with different version is bundled.  I would fear that
nonmatching versions of these two elfutils can be a source of many surprises.


Regards,
Jan

Re: frysk-imports/tests ChangeLog Makefile.am frys ...

[Andrew Cagney]

Jan,
Per Mark's suggestion, it should be using the in-tree elfutils header.  
Can we fix that?

Roland,
Unfortunately Frysk is still finding a need for pre-release access to 
elfutils changes, preventing this.  We're certainly closer though.

Andrew

Roland McGrath wrote:
> Code should be written to expect elfutils headers to be found.  If you are
> linking against an in-tree elfutils build, then other things should be
> getting -I's appropriately.  The way frysk should be built on Fedora >= 6
> is against the installed elfutils.
>   

Re: frysk-imports/tests ChangeLog Makefile.am frys ...

[Roland McGrath]

> Unfortunately Frysk is still finding a need for pre-release access to 
> elfutils changes, preventing this.  We're certainly closer though.

There are no pending fixes vs 0.128 right now.

Re: frysk-imports/tests ChangeLog Makefile.am frys ...

[Kris Van Hees]

I very much agree.  It certainly indicates that something is wrong with
the frysk compilation setup in terms of dealing with elfutils.

In retrospect, perhaps it would be better for me to remove those rpms
from the build systems, and have it continue to fail as long as this
problem remains in the tree.  But at least for the automated builds, I
feel it is more important (at this point) to be able to work around
the problem and get successful builds that can be tested.

	Cheers,
	Kris

On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 05:59:28PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:47:33 +0200, Kris Van Hees wrote:
> > The automated builds were being plagued by this as wel (except for the
> > FC6 x86_64 box that for some reason actually had elfutils-libelf-devel
> > installed).  I installed that rpm (and dependencies)
> 
> It looks very fragile to me if the project is able to touch system elfutils
> while the same package with different version is bundled.  I would fear that
> nonmatching versions of these two elfutils can be a source of many surprises.