Mail archive
alpine-infra

Re: Building community/cargo, build-edge-x86_64 is stuck

From: Jakub Jirutka <jakub_at_jirutka.cz>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 18:10:49 +0100

>> You could do that, or what I was inferring was that the binary itself was still available on distfiles.alpinelinux.org.

There’s only cargo-0.22.0.tar.gz, that’s the source tarball from the upstream, not binary…

Jakub

> On 30. Oct 2017, at 18:07, Jakub Jirutka <jakub_at_jirutka.cz> wrote:
>
>> If this is the case, then it, too, is no longer policy compliant.
>
> Said who? These policies are (still) not written anywhere, so I follow what I was told by competent people like ncopa or fabled.
>
>> Manual intervention on the builders does not seem like a good idea to me, which is probably why it’s not compliant with policy.
>
> I agree, but I haven’t created this approach.
>
>> I suspect the ghc-bootstrap package was dropped because of the depsolver bug I solved back in April.
>> The bootstrap package would have a provides entry for the compiler with a version of 0.
>> This would allow the real compiler to always „win" the preference.
>
> No, it was dropped because it was partially broken (I reviewed it) and actually not used (per fabled). I remember that quite well, ’cause I wasted amount of time trying to figure out how does it work, to be then told it’s not used at all.
>
>> Instead, lets solve these problems correctly, please.
>
> The problem is that I don’t know what is the correct solution. That’s why I asked ncopa or fabled.
>
>> Indeed, the only thing we have learned today is that Haskell is also broken.
>
> And maybe even gcc, ’cause it also depends on itself… Or you have just wrong information. gcc is also handled somehow specially, if I remember correctly what fabled told me.
>
> So please, don’t interfere into it and wait for reaction from ncopa or fabled.
>
> Jakub
>
>> On 30. Oct 2017, at 17:53, William Pitcock <nenolod_at_dereferenced.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Jakub Jirutka <jakub_at_jirutka.cz> wrote:
>>>> A manual intervention on each builder is not an acceptable solution.
>>>> Policy requires that builds be reproducible, in other words, that they can build with `abuild rootbld`.
>>>> So this change should not have been pushed to begin with.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, I thought this too, but it’s not how it really works. See below.
>>>
>>>> Look at the haskell + cabal packaging for inspiration, it is a similar situation, and is policy compliant.
>>>
>>> Have *you* looked at ghc (haskell) package? I did some time ago (and now), tried hard to figure out how does it build. There is `makedepends_build="$pkgname"`, so it depends on itself. There used to be package ghc-bootstrap, but it was not used anymore (and even that couldn’t work without manual intervention). I asked fabled about it and he explained me that ghc-bootstrap was only temporary for initial bootstrap, now ghc depends on itself and it must be probably manually installed on the builder when bootstrapping.
>>
>> I did some time ago, when we had ghc-bootstrap package.
>> If this is the case, then it, too, is no longer policy compliant.
>>
>>> The same situation is community/rust. I even mentioned this in my email.
>>
>> The same situation of being policy non-compliant?
>>
>>> Unfortunately the bootstrapping (and cross-compilation) process is still not documented anywhere, so I can refer only to information that I was told by more competent people like fabled.
>>
>> Manual intervention on the builders does not seem like a good idea to
>> me, which is probably why it's not compliant with policy.
>>
>> I suspect the ghc-bootstrap package was dropped because of the
>> depsolver bug I solved back in April.
>> The bootstrap package would have a provides entry for the compiler
>> with a version of 0.
>> This would allow the real compiler to always "win" the preference.
>>
>>>> A solution would be to take a copy of the cargo package from distfiles.alpinelinux.org
>>>
>>> This is actually a good idea. I can keep it as it was before, just use our cargo binary instead of now non-existence binary from the upstream.
>>
>> You could do that, or what I was inferring was that the binary itself
>> was still available on distfiles.alpinelinux.org.
>> All the builders copy their sources to that server.
>>
>>> fabled or ncopa, could you please explain how is ghc and similar packages handled? Ideally directly on wiki, or just via email and I will copy it to wiki.
>>
>> Instead, lets solve these problems correctly, please.
>> Indeed, the only thing we have learned today is that Haskell is also broken.
>>
>> William
>>
>


Received on Mon Oct 30 2017 - 18:10:49 GMT