Re: new snapshot available: autoconf-2.72c

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Fri, 2023-03-31 at 19:53 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2023-03-28 13:57, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >  From a regression/failure point of view, the worrying issue is the
> > gpgme/mpg123 issue on x32 which also appears for musl 32 and 64 bit x86
> > targets.
> > 
> >
> >
> Could you explain that a bit more? All I can see from the first log is:
> Summary: 2 tasks failed:
> /home/pokybuild/yocto-worker/musl-qemux86-64/build/meta/recipes-support/gpgme/
> /home/pokybuild/yocto-worker/musl-qemux86-64/build/meta/recipes-multimedia/mpg123/
> Summary: There were 4 ERROR messages, returning a non-zero exit code.
> Why are these two failures worrisome and what do they indicate about 
> problems with Autoconf? I assume there are more detailed logs somewhere 
> but I don't know where. Thanks.

The full compile output is further back in the logs. Since the
configure stage passed, I had to reproduce the issue to look at the
configure stage (I could have pulled the logs).

I was worried about these two since they're the only ones occurring out
of a much larger set of software and they occur after a successful
configure, implying the configure wasn't really right.

It wasn't just musl since this also happened with a glibc x32 build.

The common factor is they're both cases where our site cache sets:


In these two pieces of software, it looks like this configure stops
setting -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 in these cases. The setup in gpgme and
mpg123 detects this and errors.

I'm not really sure it is a real error as such since off_t is always 64
bit on those platforms so it doesn't need the define. It does appear to
be a bit of a change of behaviour on autoconf's part. If I remove the
site cache entries, things work out ok.

Reading bug reports in the upstreams for those software, the authors
have tried very hard to be correct with large file support and are
frustrated with all the different permutations.

I suspect we're best dropping those site cache entries when we upgrade
to the new autoconf which should resolve the issue but I haven't had a
chance to 100% confirm all the details.



[Index of Archives]     [GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux USB]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux