From nobody Sat Feb 01 21:40:04 2025 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YlmPz6d6Qz5m3tJ for ; Sat, 01 Feb 2025 21:40:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "R10" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4YlmPz22klz3c2Y; Sat, 01 Feb 2025 21:40:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@freebsd.org) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1738446007; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AKu6AbiC342i0dxkCkpraQHg9Aasptr39S0FzaEH4TY=; b=tmHPSe9je5MQ6ej9x39MtZCJ98OKkykivD86LLpXIK8dIWdv+J30/jW4dGQ4POxyopkWJI QHQKlBYQZjaak1RgvfDew84qxTekdeDjHpssuaTZmKfunx/ilMbQ5MijJBZCaDjiD0djvw NAGx35D9LeInjtx13hE7lRwSj2rw0uKfW5NpbuRr8Mnjuaqv7joR9UhPpsFhOVrtLk1UW+ o1bkGPkU4G3ckd35ezwpRqWnhBTCt7uBC9U+0tVQRNrLL6wHBRgEktRCzqa53FAu1CRWJn 5dJlAOUkco9S/Lxg1tvcw2uzkP3ZRvovJ7oZX0joPhzM+GYrADL2cduUwS2jVQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=freebsd.org; s=dkim; t=1738446007; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=AKu6AbiC342i0dxkCkpraQHg9Aasptr39S0FzaEH4TY=; b=uD87r2iLvHzLTqIektcSlL3q9zmAHIZCQIg8PVZWugR+bCg2F3hWpfLHRhbfnDSFfGY4Zv mGlqfmiRJ5xP864qcK6ytUQnFpCVRzstmlXuhE028izH2jTWyw+aAHHct7PYrmDhzz9QB+ +hHLr9iGahJrwHxcw8mdqFNTFn8Q0oSgP8KRepXJDtDYD/8PzJjuKQ9vHIUfeATJFjSePr LnbqIzPGdhoNurLhjfJ/lyaRF0+9Vxq6wBukixltP3X9EUBVLkvVHbMxerHpaYCKmo10/4 uyS8EQ/7D/riq3hZGgoIAUePyjaF5jXLRuWTU+zevXZXHobOboWYBvfb5MyI1w== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=dkim; d=freebsd.org; t=1738446007; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=xo/rDEYbxYqsDupRmIopvK+FLzXa9tUjzzunMLR55hIJ8uafqQdWjPGLea3PJs96KudDoT lsdS2r3zJtpaSSRPk98LtHP8Ja2Od1kpqpHmEU2eorp1qOB0XAz7CGwHc88iNSoARo/DeN ta/3Q2Klr3KOThG3Ns6EI9277JmOFGjsEfcKqNOuBYHyHV3TdalLCQ7j340Z769hj6FxG2 24eiARyxxqbAfOtQ11lEQkJX1qJcaXy43oLBNBduZ+ajplnBRblmXp4/0MYvhPMmeIkpmr PjpSUlHbE82ZpGQd5t3Ph4BI0vE4VgShdKx1XutViQagMltJOKB/aOjbawKRjA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from aniel.nours.eu (nours.eu [176.31.115.77]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: bapt) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4YlmPz0ktsz5L9; Sat, 01 Feb 2025 21:40:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bapt@freebsd.org) Received: by aniel.nours.eu (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4478A1BC6C2; Sat, 01 Feb 2025 22:40:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2025 22:40:04 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin To: Guido Falsi Cc: Nuno Teixeira , "Hurling, Rainer" , Dimitry Andric , FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: poudriere loop: llvm19-19.1.7: missed shlib PORTREVISION chase Message-ID: References: <68bbf05d-1d4a-4819-bb83-be6c4f002a63@gwdg.de> <7fb64cac-9b09-4235-9235-2bfb6c228442@gwdg.de> <4de598b1-a576-4ac6-949c-63d1065d818d@madpilot.net> List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri 31 Jan 19:13, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Fri 31 Jan 18:18, Guido Falsi wrote: > > On 27/01/25 10:56, Nuno Teixeira wrote: > > > Hello Rainer, > > > > > > > Wouldn't this be the right time to get Bapt@ involved? After all, he has > > > > worked intensively on the pkg updates. > > > > > > Yes it is. I'm CC'ing bapt@. > > > > Since this issue was pestering me while testing multiple ports with > > unnecessarily lengthy rebuilds I took a look. > > > > I have posted a pull request for poudriere [1] with a fix/workaround that > > works for me and allows me to have a functional build machine. > > > > I'm not sure if this fix is completely correct, but maybe it can be useful > > to other people as a work around. > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/freebsd/poudriere/pull/1204 > > > > -- > > Guido Falsi > > at quick glance it sounds like a bug in pkg I ll have a look at it next week > > Bapt > After deeper analysis, I figure pkg is right and each time it claims a need for After a deeper analysis: 32bits libs, they are actually needed. for reported ports, I think the PKG_NO_VERSION_FOR_DEPS=yes does not work yet with newer pkg version. I have found while analysing to potential bug at pkg install time for people not using pkgbase, which I will work on fixing, not nothing wrong regarding the :32 handling at pkg build time (aka what you face in poudriere). I may be wrong, but I am not sure I am. For people who haven't notice one of the major change of pkg 2.x is tracking 32 bit libraries (and potentially linux one, off for now) AND tracking base libraries always. After a deeper analysis: My understanding if poudriere with PKG_NO_VERSION_FOR_DEPS=yes would work ok as if, if the building jail was built using pkgbase. What poudriere lacks for the options if gathering base libaries to consider them as provided. Note that pkg at runtime if not running on a system install using pkgbase, will scan for base libraries. (Note this is where I found the bug I am interesting in: it does not scan for 32bit libraries yet, which make pkg check -d unhappy) Best regards, Bapt