[arch-dev-public] [core] build report
Hi, This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go! Missing makedepends: FAIL: dbus - configure: error: Explicitly requested systemd support, but systemd not found FAIL: linux - /build/PKGBUILD: line 148: depmod: command not found FAIL: linux-lts - /build/PKGBUILD: line 148: depmod: command not found FAIL: lvm2 - configure: error: Package requirements (libudev >= 143) were not met: Other: FAIL: curl - C{PP,}FLAGS issue FAIL: gcc - texinfo update issue FAIL: isdn4k-utils - autotools update issue FAIL: libtirpc - autotools update issue FAIL: net-tools - strip.c:24:28: fatal error: linux/if_strip.h: No such file or directory FAIL: ppl - gmp update issue
On 13/03/13 14:22, Allan McRae wrote:
Hi,
This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go!
Not bad! A new x86_64 chroot now includes 84 packages (down from 131) and uses ~415 MiB of disk space (down from ~591 MiB). May I also suggest that we install namcap by default; currently it gets installed in the copied chroot at the end of each build.
On 14/03/13 00:27, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
On 13/03/13 14:22, Allan McRae wrote:
Hi,
This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go!
Not bad! A new x86_64 chroot now includes 84 packages (down from 131) and uses ~415 MiB of disk space (down from ~591 MiB).
May I also suggest that we install namcap by default; currently it gets installed in the copied chroot at the end of each build.
No - that brings in python. Allan
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go!
Missing makedepends:
FAIL: dbus - configure: error: Explicitly requested systemd support, but systemd not found
FAIL: linux - /build/PKGBUILD: line 148: depmod: command not found
FAIL: linux-lts - /build/PKGBUILD: line 148: depmod: command not found
FAIL: lvm2 - configure: error: Package requirements (libudev >= 143) were not met:
fixed in trunk
Other:
FAIL: curl - C{PP,}FLAGS issue
FAIL: gcc - texinfo update issue
FAIL: isdn4k-utils - autotools update issue
FAIL: libtirpc - autotools update issue
FAIL: net-tools - strip.c:24:28: fatal error: linux/if_strip.h: No such file or directory
FAIL: ppl - gmp update issue
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go!
As your TODO suggest everything needed to build chroot, can we add sudo too? I'm writing a patch for devtools which change the default install groups/packages from "base base-devel sudo" to "base-devel sudol", and it seems more elegant to me to have only "base-devel". Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A
On 14 March 2013 03:35, Sébastien Luttringer <seblu@seblu.net> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go!
As your TODO suggest everything needed to build chroot, can we add sudo too? I'm writing a patch for devtools which change the default install groups/packages from "base base-devel sudo" to "base-devel sudol", and it seems more elegant to me to have only "base-devel".
sudo 1.8.6.p7-2 (currently in [testing]) is now part of the base-devel group.
Am 13.03.2013 13:22, schrieb Allan McRae:
Hi,
This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go!
Would it be reasonable to add systemd to base-devel or should we rather add systemd as a dep to a bunch of packages? I see packages calling tmpfiles etc. on install so we'll have runtime deps and not just makedepends. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Am 17.03.2013 11:32, schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
Am 13.03.2013 13:22, schrieb Allan McRae:
Hi,
This build was done with a chroot containing only base-devel and sudo. Not many packages failed due to this, and can readily be fixed by adding makedepends. So it seems the idea of reducing our build chroots down is good to go!
Would it be reasonable to add systemd to base-devel or should we rather add systemd as a dep to a bunch of packages? I see packages calling tmpfiles etc. on install so we'll have runtime deps and not just makedepends.
Here is a list of packages that need to have the systemd dep added (if it not already has): libvirt ndisc6 murmur wesnoth lightdm openntpd picocom percona-server minidlna proftpd bitlbee pgbouncer subversion postgresql mysql mpd php fetchmail lighttpd transmission apache samba lirc mariadb -- Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
Am 17.03.2013 11:32, schrieb Pierre Schmitz:
Would it be reasonable to add systemd to base-devel
I don't see how systemd is required for building packages, unless you link to libsystemd-*.
participants (6)
-
Allan McRae
-
Eric Bélanger
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Sébastien Luttringer
-
Thomas Bächler