[build2] build2 0.9.0 bootstrap build failure

Matthew Krupcale mkrupcale at matthewkrupcale.com
Wed Feb 27 01:17:42 UTC 2019

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:57 AM Boris Kolpackov <boris at codesynthesis.com> wrote:
> Fixed, here are the patches:
> https://git.build2.org/cgit/bpkg/commit/?id=4c79699959a1368d1a1cd4770d5f46134768905d
> https://git.build2.org/cgit/bdep/commit/?id=e94a902741bbafa6f60f199622465d11346b287d

Thanks, I've applied these and successfully built on both F29 and
rawhide now[1]. Next steps for getting into the official Fedora
package repos are to:
 1. Configure spec file to only run tests which do not require
internet access due to official Fedora build environment not allowing
internet access[2]
 2. Run through local fedora-review
 3. Fix any issues spotted by fedora-review
 4. Submit official package Review Request
 5. Find a sponsor to join Fedora packagers

Regarding step 1, what I'm currently doing and what I think is the
easiest way is to use the config.bdep.test.repository='' option to
short-circuit the bdep ci and publish tests, which appear to be the
only ones that require network access. However, on a more general
note, I can see from the build2 manual[3] that there is a way to
specify which test(s) to run through the "config.test" CLI option for
build2, but it might make sense to add a way to instead specify a
blacklist / exclude specific tests.

At this point, I'm essentially done with steps 1-3, and I think things
are looking pretty good as far as Fedora packing requirements go. The
potential points of contention during review I foresee are:
 - Bundling libodb. This is discouraged in general but somewhat
necessary if we want to build bpkg and bdep along with build2, since
they depend on the yet un-released ODB 2.5.0, and ODB itself depends
on build2.
 - Unversioned so-files (libbutl-0.9.so and libbpkg-0.9.so). This
refers to the platform-specific library versioning which is typical on
Linux to denote ABI changes which require a rebuild of artifacts
depending on them.

So I plan to prepare a formal package Review Request soon, and
hopefully it will proceed without issue and enter the official repos
once I find a sponsor.

> Apparently not in C++20:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1008r1.pdf

Okay, makes sense.

> BTW, there are still some warnings in ODB code which we will look
> into once GCC 9 is out.

Okay, sounds good.

[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mkrupcale/build2/build/862609/
[2] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_build_time_network_access
[3] https://build2.org/build2/doc/build2-build-system-manual.xhtml#module-test

More information about the users mailing list