Hi.
Since about one week I have many failed builds of nodejs-packages on EPEL7. The failed builds happen on ppc builders, the builds fail with:
EBUG util.py:393: Getting requirements for nodejs-grunt-contrib-internal-0.4.9-4.el7.src DEBUG util.py:393: --> nodejs-packaging-7-1.el7.noarch DEBUG util.py:393: Error: Package: nodejs-packaging-7-1.el7.noarch (build) DEBUG util.py:393: Requires: nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.12 DEBUG util.py:393: You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem DEBUG util.py:393: You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12048804
Which makes sense as nodejs is not available on PPC.
Do we need to set a BuildArch? Why did this not happen before last week?
Piotr
On 04/12/15 08:31, Piotr Popieluch wrote:
Since about one week I have many failed builds of nodejs-packages on EPEL7. The failed builds happen on ppc builders, the builds fail with:
EBUG util.py:393: Getting requirements for nodejs-grunt-contrib-internal-0.4.9-4.el7.src DEBUG util.py:393: --> nodejs-packaging-7-1.el7.noarch DEBUG util.py:393: Error: Package: nodejs-packaging-7-1.el7.noarch (build) DEBUG util.py:393: Requires: nodejs(engine) >= 0.10.12 DEBUG util.py:393: You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem DEBUG util.py:393: You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12048804
Which makes sense as nodejs is not available on PPC.
Do we need to set a BuildArch?
Well the BuildArch is, in most cases, noarch.
The trick is the ExclusiveArch line which is what stops it build on unsupported platforms. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js#ExclusiveArch
Tom
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu wrote:
<< >> Well the BuildArch is, in most cases, noarch.
The trick is the ExclusiveArch line which is what stops it build on unsupported platforms. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js#ExclusiveArch
That is configured and has worked before.
%if 0%{?fedora} >= 19 ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches} noarch %else ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} noarch %endif
This specific module is nodejs-grunt-contrib-connect But I've seen more fail.
Tom
-- Tom Hughes (tom@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
Apparently the ExclusiveArch line is incorrect. The "noarch" shouldn't be there.
See releng trac: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6329
I've created an fpc ticket to have this updated in the guidelines: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/587
What to do with existing packages? Run a script to update all nodejs specs (without rebuilding)?
Piotr
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu wrote:
<< >> Well the BuildArch is, in most cases, noarch.
The trick is the ExclusiveArch line which is what stops it build on unsupported platforms. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js#ExclusiveArch
That is configured and has worked before.
%if 0%{?fedora} >= 19 ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches} noarch %else ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} noarch %endif
This specific module is nodejs-grunt-contrib-connect But I've seen more fail.
Tom
-- Tom Hughes (tom@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ _______________________________________________ nodejs mailing list nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 12/01/16 14:45, Piotr Popieluch wrote:
Apparently the ExclusiveArch line is incorrect. The "noarch" shouldn't be there.
See releng trac: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6329
As I recall we took advice from all the experts at the time and it was carefully crafted the way it is because of what they advised...
Tom
On 12/01/16 14:48, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 12/01/16 14:45, Piotr Popieluch wrote:
Apparently the ExclusiveArch line is incorrect. The "noarch" shouldn't be there.
See releng trac: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6329
As I recall we took advice from all the experts at the time and it was carefully crafted the way it is because of what they advised...
See:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/nodejs/2013-May/000025.html
and:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2013-May/008482.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2013-May/008483.html
Tom
On 01/12/2016 03:52 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 12/01/16 14:48, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 12/01/16 14:45, Piotr Popieluch wrote:
Apparently the ExclusiveArch line is incorrect. The "noarch" shouldn't be there.
See releng trac: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6329
As I recall we took advice from all the experts at the time and it was carefully crafted the way it is because of what they advised...
See:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/nodejs/2013-May/000025.html
and:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2013-May/008482.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-devel/2013-May/008483.html
Tom
Update:
It has now been discussed at FPC and currently there is no good solution.
There are two options:
1) Make all modules archfull (which will result much more packges built) 2) Resubmit until a non PPC builder gets the job.
FPC meeting notes:
* #587 Node.js Guideline ExclusiveArch incorrect (geppetto, 17:06:36) * That's just how koji works, noarch is needed for rpmbuild removing it doesn't fix the problem. Just have to resubmit until you get a correct arch. (geppetto, 17:22:16) * ExcludeArch also doesn't do anything. FWIW. The only other option is to make the packages arch. (geppetto, 17:23:44) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/koji/ticket/210 (orionp, 17:30:13)
On 14/01/16 20:24, Piotr Popieluch wrote:
Update:
It has now been discussed at FPC and currently there is no good solution.
There are two options:
- Make all modules archfull (which will result much more packges built)
- Resubmit until a non PPC builder gets the job.
The other option of course is to enhance koji so that there is a better way to do it ;-)
Presumably the issue is that if BuildArch is noarch then koji will allow it to build anywhere?
This specific issue will stop being a problem when node 4 is merged anyway as I understand it, as that has PPC support?
Incidentally, is there a good reason why we don't merge the side tag given that all the binary issues are sorted and we seem to be doing the npm stack in the main tag anyway?
Tom
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu wrote:
This specific issue will stop being a problem when node 4 is merged anyway as I understand it, as that has PPC support?
That's my understanding.
Incidentally, is there a good reason why we don't merge the side tag given that all the binary issues are sorted and we seem to be doing the npm stack in the main tag anyway?
Good question -- I knew that we were doing all the npm *dependencies* in the main tag in rawhide, but I didn't know if we needed to do npm itself in the side tag. Without really thinking about it too hard this morning, I can't think of a reason not to merge the side tag.
-- Jared Smith
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/15/2016 09:22 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Tom Hughes <tom@compton.nu mailto:tom@compton.nu> wrote:
This specific issue will stop being a problem when node 4 is merged anyway as I understand it, as that has PPC support?
That's my understanding.
Incidentally, is there a good reason why we don't merge the side tag given that all the binary issues are sorted and we seem to be doing the npm stack in the main tag anyway?
Good question -- I knew that we were doing all the npm *dependencies* in the main tag in rawhide, but I didn't know if we needed to do npm itself in the side tag. Without really thinking about it too hard this morning, I can't think of a reason not to merge the side tag.
The reason for the side-tag was to deal with rebuilds for packages that were not compatible with both 0.10.x and 4.x. That seems to have failed anyway, since we have nodejs-got in Rawhide requiring 4.x+
The remaining problem is still npm *itself*, since I'm not certain if the current version of npm in Rawhide will work with 4.x, so I'd prefer not to merge until we get that built.
I'm working on the last couple packages today, so I suspect we'll be ready to build npm very soon.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:26 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
I'm working on the last couple packages today, so I suspect we'll be ready to build npm very soon.
As am I -- let's coordinate (perhaps in #fedora-devel on IRC) so that we don't step on each other's toes. I think that getting the last few dependencies should be fairly simple -- I'm more worried about the npm package itself. It seems that the existing patches in the npm package don't come anywhere close to applying cleanly to the new version of npm, and the couple of previous times I've tried to start working on fixing up those patches I've gotten a headache and walked away. Maybe we'll get lucky and most of the patches won't be needed any longer?!?
-- Jared Smith
nodejs@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jared K. Smith -
Piotr Popieluch -
Stephen Gallagher -
Tom Hughes