On Thursday, July 20, 2023 5:04:36 AM EDT Ilya Dryomov wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:08 AM Adam Emerson <aemerson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 19/07/2023, Ilya Dryomov wrote: > > > Hi Adam, > > > > > > "make check" fails to build on pacific and quincy: > > > > > > common/CMakeFiles/common-common-objs.dir/ConfUtils.cc.o:(.bss+0x0): > > > first defined here > > > /usr/bin/ld: CMakeFiles/common-objs.dir/mon/MonCap.cc.o:(.bss+0x2): > > > multiple definition of `boost::phoenix::placeholders::uarg2'; > > > common/CMakeFiles/common-common-objs.dir/ConfUtils.cc.o:(.bss+0x2): > > > first defined here > > > /usr/bin/ld: CMakeFiles/common-objs.dir/mon/MonCap.cc.o:(.bss+0x4): > > > multiple definition of `boost::phoenix::placeholders::uarg3'; > > > common/CMakeFiles/common-common-objs.dir/ConfUtils.cc.o:(.bss+0x4): > > > first defined here > > > ... > > > > > > Example on pacific: > > > https://jenkins.ceph.com/job/ceph-pull-requests/118551/ > > > > > > Example on quincy: > > > https://jenkins.ceph.com/job/ceph-pull-requests/118552/ > > > > > > Could you please take a look? > > > > Yes. > > > > There are three things going on here: > > > > 1. It looks like things aren't completely cleaned up between make check > > > > runs, and stuff installed for one hangs around for others. This > > surprises me. > > > > 2. It looks like quincy's install-deps.sh wasn't updated when we > > > > switched to jammy, and it was just using whatever version of Boost > > was lying around from previous builds. When this was 1.79, that > > didn't cause problems. For 1.82, it does. > > > > 3. Proximately, the workaround for the Boost.Phoenix bug isn't in > > > > quincy. > > > > I have a candidate fix in https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/52559 > > > > Long-term, I think we should also address issue 1, the state of the > > bulder being overly dependendent on what was built previously. > > This is what Ernesto and John have been cooperating on. Some > preliminary work landed in https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/48697, the > goal is to fully containerize everything that's running in Jenkins. > > John, any news on picking up https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/46071? > Hi there, thanks for following up on this. This thread is timely because I was just talking to Adam King about how I haven't spent much time on that lately. I still occasionally update my WIP branch: https://github.com/phlogistonjohn/ ceph/tree/jjm-containerized-build - mainly when I need to use it from time to time. Unfortunately my experience with PR#48697 was a bit discouraging because it was very hard to get reviews on that and find someone willing to merge it (see: https://lists.ceph.io/hyperkitty/list/dev@xxxxxxx/thread/ HMD6SXLYFRPEGW4GVKY46IMXO4GB373D/#RIDNTMSFY2ZB6HAOABXSX4QQ6H3ENTE4 ). It seems to me that a lot of these build scripts fall between the cracks in the Ceph team structure. The remaining changes in the branch are a mix of assorted fixes and cleanups to make things compile or run in the container env and more build scripts to make it "easy" to kick off a containerized build. I should stop being lazy and at least file PRs for some of the small fixes. However, I wonder if there is a good forum for discussion around topics like the builds scripts. I looked at the Ceph community calendar to see if there was a meeting that fit the topic. I saw a biweekly "infrastructure" meeting that I thought I might listen in on to see if it would be appropriate to discuss the build scripts and related topics. Since I'm replying in the thread now I will also raise it here: is there a good forum to have more detailed discussions wrt design and implementation of containerized builds, the builders, the scripts, etc? Thanks! -- John M. phlogistonjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx jmulligan@xxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
