29 Sep
2018
29 Sep
'18
2:20 a.m.
On 09/28/2018 01:39 PM, Scott Little wrote: > Ok, we've seen 3 ceph failures in our last 6 builds. > > The common factor: tpm2-tools builds on 'b0' before ceph builds. > > Our theory. The buildRequires of tpm2-tools causes autoconf-archive to > be installed... which installs a bunch of .m4 files in > /usr/share/aclocal ... which causes ceph grief when it calls aclocal. > > I don't really know automake or aclocal all that well. I'm assuming > /usr/share/aclocal is acting something like a cache, but it's a cache > whos contents are incompatible with ceph. > > Do we have any autotools / aclocal / m4 experts in the house? > > Possible fixes: > - ceph: can we tell it to not use the aclocal cache... explicitly (a > flag to aclocal?) ... or implicitly (update ceph's m4 files so they > look 'newer' than the cache)? Not sure about that, I would have to dig deeper into aclocal, it's been a while since I dug into that. > - tpm2-tools: Can we remove the dependence on autoconf-archive? No other > package we build seems to need it. > A quick scan show that the autoconf-archive was put in there for travis support, and goes away this past March upstream when they coverted to using a container for travis. If we could use a newer version of tpm2 that might solve this. Maybe Erich's solution can work Sau! > Scott > > > > On 18-09-27 04:45 PM, Saul Wold wrote: >> >> And of course it worked the third time! >> >> So, I lost the good logs. >> >> Sau! >> >> >> On 09/27/2018 12:56 PM, Scott Little wrote: >>> On 18-09-27 03:53 PM, Scott Little wrote: >>>> Our latest build, based on code synced at 2018-09-27T15:28:00 UTC, >>>> built successfully. >>>> >>>> It took three attempts to get ceph built. The first two passes >>>> aborted quickly due to missing packages. The final pass did not >>>> exhibit the 'aclocal: too many loops'**issue. >>>> >>>> The only build I have that exhibited the too many loops error was a >>>> snapshot on 2018-09-20T15:50:40 UTC >>>> >>>> I do have a designer with an older snapshot that seems to hit it >>>> regularly, so I'll work with him and see if we can learn more. >>>> >>>> I think we need more data from the community >>>> - Who's build is failing on ceph with *aclocal: too many loops?* >>>> - Who is building successfully ? >>>> - Who can build only intermittently? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Info to collect for failed builds: >>> - repo sync timestamp >>>> - build command used? >>>> - Was it a new workspace, a cleaned workspace, or a previously used >>>> workspace? >>> - $MY_WORKSPACE/CONTEXT >>>> - $MY_WORKSPACE/build-std.log >>>> - $MY_WORKSPACE/std/results/*/ceph-*/*.log >>>> >>>> For successful builds, same info. Rather than full build logs, I can >>>> settle for: >>>> - grep '\(Success building\|iteration\|building ceph\)' >>>> $MY_WORKSPACE/build-std.log >>>> - grep compute_resources: build-std.log >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18-09-27 02:21 PM, Saul Wold wrote: >>>>> On 09/26/2018 09:16 AM, Scott Little wrote: >>>>>> aclocal 'too many loops' has been popping up sporadically for a >>>>>> week or two now. Possibly 7.5 related. >>>>>> >>>>>> I suspect that there is a build order and/or race condition >>>>>> element to this. It often goes away if you just run build-pkgs a >>>>>> second time. >>>>>> >>>>> I am seeing this failure also, but it does not go away after a >>>>> second rebuild. I have the lastest stx-root (build-tools) with the >>>>> recent patches. >>>>> >>>>> Is this directly related to the fuzz issue or is there something >>>>> else we need to address in CEPH itself. >>>>> >>>>> This is blocking my local build. >>>>> >>>>> Sau! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Starlingx-discuss mailing list >>>> Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io >>>> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Starlingx-discuss mailing list >>> Starlingx-discuss@lists.starlingx.io >>> http://lists.starlingx.io/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/starlingx-discuss >>> >