* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
@ 2019-11-08 11:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Laszlo Ersek @ 2019-11-08 11:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, qemu-devel
Cc: qemu-trivial, Thomas Huth, Daniel P . Berrange,
Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
On 11/08/19 11:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> The bzip2 tool is not included in default installations.
> On freshly installed systems, ./configure succeeds but 'make'
> might fail later:
>
> BUNZIP2 pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2
> /bin/sh: bzip2: command not found
> make: *** [Makefile:305: pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd] Error 127
> make: *** Deleting file 'pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd'
> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>
> Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.
We've come full circle. Let me explain:
>
> Fixes: 536d2173b2b
So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the patch that would later become commit 536d2173b2b:
http://mid.mail-archive.com/20190321113408.19929-8-lersek@redhat.com
you see the following note in the changelog:
- compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that decompression at
"make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]
So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes, but now we also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old" for some other build OSes? This is ridiculous.
To be clear, my disagreement is only with the "Fixes" tag. For me, "Fixes" stands for something that, in retrospect, can be proven to have been a bug at the time the code was *originally* committed. But, at the time, taking "bzip2" for granted was *not* a bug. The conditions / circumstances have changed more recently, and the assumption about bzip2 has been invalidated *after* adding a dependency on bzip2.
Nonetheless, thank you for adapting the code to the potential absence of bzip2. Can you perhaps go in some details in the commit message, near "not included in default installations" and "freshly installed systems"? If we can, we should identify the exact distro release where this problem has been encountered (and I wouldn't mind a link to the BZ or ticket under which people agreed to remove bzip2 from the default package set).
Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Thanks
Laszlo
> Reported-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> ---
> configure | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/configure b/configure
> index efe165edf9..9957e913e8 100755
> --- a/configure
> +++ b/configure
> @@ -1851,6 +1851,13 @@ python_version=$($python -c 'import sys; print("%d.%d.%d" % (sys.version_info[0]
> # Suppress writing compiled files
> python="$python -B"
>
> +# Some firmware binaries are compressed with bzip2
> +if has bzip2; then
> + :
> +else
> + error_exit "bzip2 program not found. Please install it"
> +fi
> +
> # Check that the C compiler works. Doing this here before testing
> # the host CPU ensures that we had a valid CC to autodetect the
> # $cpu var (and we should bail right here if that's not the case).
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
2019-11-08 11:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
@ 2019-11-08 11:05 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Daniel P. Berrangé @ 2019-11-08 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laszlo Ersek
Cc: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, qemu-devel, qemu-trivial,
Thomas Huth, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 12:01:16PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 11/08/19 11:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > The bzip2 tool is not included in default installations.
> > On freshly installed systems, ./configure succeeds but 'make'
> > might fail later:
> >
> > BUNZIP2 pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2
> > /bin/sh: bzip2: command not found
> > make: *** [Makefile:305: pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd] Error 127
> > make: *** Deleting file 'pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd'
> > make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> >
> > Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.
>
> We've come full circle. Let me explain:
>
> >
> > Fixes: 536d2173b2b
>
> So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the patch that would later become commit 536d2173b2b:
>
> http://mid.mail-archive.com/20190321113408.19929-8-lersek@redhat.com
>
> you see the following note in the changelog:
>
> - compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that decompression at
> "make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]
>
> So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes, but now we also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old" for some other build OSes? This is ridiculous.
We're not saying bzip2 is too old / missing from the OS. Every OS we care
about has bzip2. The problem is that a minimal installation migt not have
installed it. This kind of problem is increasingly common with use of
minimal container images for example. So we're just ensuring we validate
that what we want is actuall present.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
@ 2019-11-08 11:05 ` Daniel P. Berrangé
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Daniel P. Berrangé @ 2019-11-08 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laszlo Ersek
Cc: qemu-trivial, Thomas Huth, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé,
qemu-devel, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 12:01:16PM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 11/08/19 11:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > The bzip2 tool is not included in default installations.
> > On freshly installed systems, ./configure succeeds but 'make'
> > might fail later:
> >
> > BUNZIP2 pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2
> > /bin/sh: bzip2: command not found
> > make: *** [Makefile:305: pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd] Error 127
> > make: *** Deleting file 'pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd'
> > make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
> >
> > Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.
>
> We've come full circle. Let me explain:
>
> >
> > Fixes: 536d2173b2b
>
> So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the patch that would later become commit 536d2173b2b:
>
> http://mid.mail-archive.com/20190321113408.19929-8-lersek@redhat.com
>
> you see the following note in the changelog:
>
> - compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that decompression at
> "make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]
>
> So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes, but now we also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old" for some other build OSes? This is ridiculous.
We're not saying bzip2 is too old / missing from the OS. Every OS we care
about has bzip2. The problem is that a minimal installation migt not have
installed it. This kind of problem is increasingly common with use of
minimal container images for example. So we're just ensuring we validate
that what we want is actuall present.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
2019-11-08 11:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
@ 2019-11-08 11:54 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé @ 2019-11-08 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laszlo Ersek, qemu-devel
Cc: Daniel P . Berrange, qemu-trivial, Thomas Huth,
Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
On 11/8/19 12:01 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 11/08/19 11:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> The bzip2 tool is not included in default installations.
>> On freshly installed systems, ./configure succeeds but 'make'
>> might fail later:
>>
>> BUNZIP2 pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2
>> /bin/sh: bzip2: command not found
>> make: *** [Makefile:305: pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd] Error 127
>> make: *** Deleting file 'pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd'
>> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>
>> Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.
>
> We've come full circle. Let me explain:
>
>>
>> Fixes: 536d2173b2b
>
> So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the patch that would later become commit 536d2173b2b:
>
> http://mid.mail-archive.com/20190321113408.19929-8-lersek@redhat.com
>
> you see the following note in the changelog:
>
> - compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that decompression at
> "make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]
>
> So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes, but now we also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old" for some other build OSes? This is ridiculous.
>
> To be clear, my disagreement is only with the "Fixes" tag. For me, "Fixes" stands for something that, in retrospect, can be proven to have been a bug at the time the code was *originally* committed. But, at the time, taking "bzip2" for granted was *not* a bug. The conditions / circumstances have changed more recently, and the assumption about bzip2 has been invalidated *after* adding a dependency on bzip2.
>
> Nonetheless, thank you for adapting the code to the potential absence of bzip2. Can you perhaps go in some details in the commit message, near "not included in default installations" and "freshly installed systems"? If we can, we should identify the exact distro release where this problem has been encountered (and I wouldn't mind a link to the BZ or ticket under which people agreed to remove bzip2 from the default package set).
I am just reading this and already sent a v2.
I can amend these details. Thomas, what distro release were you using?
>
> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
>
>> Reported-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> configure | 7 +++++++
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>> index efe165edf9..9957e913e8 100755
>> --- a/configure
>> +++ b/configure
>> @@ -1851,6 +1851,13 @@ python_version=$($python -c 'import sys; print("%d.%d.%d" % (sys.version_info[0]
>> # Suppress writing compiled files
>> python="$python -B"
>>
>> +# Some firmware binaries are compressed with bzip2
>> +if has bzip2; then
>> + :
>> +else
>> + error_exit "bzip2 program not found. Please install it"
>> +fi
>> +
>> # Check that the C compiler works. Doing this here before testing
>> # the host CPU ensures that we had a valid CC to autodetect the
>> # $cpu var (and we should bail right here if that's not the case).
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
@ 2019-11-08 11:54 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé @ 2019-11-08 11:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laszlo Ersek, qemu-devel
Cc: qemu-trivial, Thomas Huth, Daniel P . Berrange,
Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
On 11/8/19 12:01 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 11/08/19 11:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> The bzip2 tool is not included in default installations.
>> On freshly installed systems, ./configure succeeds but 'make'
>> might fail later:
>>
>> BUNZIP2 pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2
>> /bin/sh: bzip2: command not found
>> make: *** [Makefile:305: pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd] Error 127
>> make: *** Deleting file 'pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd'
>> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>
>> Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.
>
> We've come full circle. Let me explain:
>
>>
>> Fixes: 536d2173b2b
>
> So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the patch that would later become commit 536d2173b2b:
>
> http://mid.mail-archive.com/20190321113408.19929-8-lersek@redhat.com
>
> you see the following note in the changelog:
>
> - compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that decompression at
> "make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]
>
> So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes, but now we also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old" for some other build OSes? This is ridiculous.
>
> To be clear, my disagreement is only with the "Fixes" tag. For me, "Fixes" stands for something that, in retrospect, can be proven to have been a bug at the time the code was *originally* committed. But, at the time, taking "bzip2" for granted was *not* a bug. The conditions / circumstances have changed more recently, and the assumption about bzip2 has been invalidated *after* adding a dependency on bzip2.
>
> Nonetheless, thank you for adapting the code to the potential absence of bzip2. Can you perhaps go in some details in the commit message, near "not included in default installations" and "freshly installed systems"? If we can, we should identify the exact distro release where this problem has been encountered (and I wouldn't mind a link to the BZ or ticket under which people agreed to remove bzip2 from the default package set).
I am just reading this and already sent a v2.
I can amend these details. Thomas, what distro release were you using?
>
> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
>
>> Reported-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> configure | 7 +++++++
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/configure b/configure
>> index efe165edf9..9957e913e8 100755
>> --- a/configure
>> +++ b/configure
>> @@ -1851,6 +1851,13 @@ python_version=$($python -c 'import sys; print("%d.%d.%d" % (sys.version_info[0]
>> # Suppress writing compiled files
>> python="$python -B"
>>
>> +# Some firmware binaries are compressed with bzip2
>> +if has bzip2; then
>> + :
>> +else
>> + error_exit "bzip2 program not found. Please install it"
>> +fi
>> +
>> # Check that the C compiler works. Doing this here before testing
>> # the host CPU ensures that we had a valid CC to autodetect the
>> # $cpu var (and we should bail right here if that's not the case).
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
2019-11-08 11:54 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
@ 2019-11-08 11:57 ` Thomas Huth
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Huth @ 2019-11-08 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, Laszlo Ersek, qemu-devel
Cc: Daniel P . Berrange, qemu-trivial, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
On 08/11/2019 12.54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 11/8/19 12:01 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 11/08/19 11:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> The bzip2 tool is not included in default installations.
>>> On freshly installed systems, ./configure succeeds but 'make'
>>> might fail later:
>>>
>>> BUNZIP2 pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2
>>> /bin/sh: bzip2: command not found
>>> make: *** [Makefile:305: pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd] Error 127
>>> make: *** Deleting file 'pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd'
>>> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>>
>>> Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.
>>
>> We've come full circle. Let me explain:
>>
>>>
>>> Fixes: 536d2173b2b
>>
>> So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the
>> patch that would later become commit 536d2173b2b:
>>
>> http://mid.mail-archive.com/20190321113408.19929-8-lersek@redhat.com
>>
>> you see the following note in the changelog:
>>
>> - compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that
>> decompression at
>> "make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]
>>
>> So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes,
>> but now we also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old"
>> for some other build OSes? This is ridiculous.
>>
>> To be clear, my disagreement is only with the "Fixes" tag. For me,
>> "Fixes" stands for something that, in retrospect, can be proven to
>> have been a bug at the time the code was *originally* committed. But,
>> at the time, taking "bzip2" for granted was *not* a bug. The
>> conditions / circumstances have changed more recently, and the
>> assumption about bzip2 has been invalidated *after* adding a
>> dependency on bzip2.
>>
>> Nonetheless, thank you for adapting the code to the potential absence
>> of bzip2. Can you perhaps go in some details in the commit message,
>> near "not included in default installations" and "freshly installed
>> systems"? If we can, we should identify the exact distro release where
>> this problem has been encountered (and I wouldn't mind a link to the
>> BZ or ticket under which people agreed to remove bzip2 from the
>> default package set).
>
> I am just reading this and already sent a v2.
>
> I can amend these details. Thomas, what distro release were you using?
I encountered this problem with a freshly installed Fedora 31.
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
@ 2019-11-08 11:57 ` Thomas Huth
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Huth @ 2019-11-08 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, Laszlo Ersek, qemu-devel
Cc: qemu-trivial, Daniel P . Berrange, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
On 08/11/2019 12.54, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> On 11/8/19 12:01 PM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> On 11/08/19 11:28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> The bzip2 tool is not included in default installations.
>>> On freshly installed systems, ./configure succeeds but 'make'
>>> might fail later:
>>>
>>> BUNZIP2 pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd.bz2
>>> /bin/sh: bzip2: command not found
>>> make: *** [Makefile:305: pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd] Error 127
>>> make: *** Deleting file 'pc-bios/edk2-i386-secure-code.fd'
>>> make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
>>>
>>> Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.
>>
>> We've come full circle. Let me explain:
>>
>>>
>>> Fixes: 536d2173b2b
>>
>> So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the
>> patch that would later become commit 536d2173b2b:
>>
>> http://mid.mail-archive.com/20190321113408.19929-8-lersek@redhat.com
>>
>> you see the following note in the changelog:
>>
>> - compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that
>> decompression at
>> "make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]
>>
>> So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes,
>> but now we also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old"
>> for some other build OSes? This is ridiculous.
>>
>> To be clear, my disagreement is only with the "Fixes" tag. For me,
>> "Fixes" stands for something that, in retrospect, can be proven to
>> have been a bug at the time the code was *originally* committed. But,
>> at the time, taking "bzip2" for granted was *not* a bug. The
>> conditions / circumstances have changed more recently, and the
>> assumption about bzip2 has been invalidated *after* adding a
>> dependency on bzip2.
>>
>> Nonetheless, thank you for adapting the code to the potential absence
>> of bzip2. Can you perhaps go in some details in the commit message,
>> near "not included in default installations" and "freshly installed
>> systems"? If we can, we should identify the exact distro release where
>> this problem has been encountered (and I wouldn't mind a link to the
>> BZ or ticket under which people agreed to remove bzip2 from the
>> default package set).
>
> I am just reading this and already sent a v2.
>
> I can amend these details. Thomas, what distro release were you using?
I encountered this problem with a freshly installed Fedora 31.
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
2019-11-08 11:01 ` Laszlo Ersek
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
(?)
@ 2019-11-08 15:43 ` Eric Blake
2019-11-08 17:07 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Eric Blake @ 2019-11-08 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Laszlo Ersek, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, qemu-devel
Cc: qemu-trivial, Thomas Huth, Daniel P . Berrange,
Wainer dos Santos Moschetta
On 11/8/19 5:01 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>>
>> Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.
>
> We've come full circle. Let me explain:
>
>>
>> Fixes: 536d2173b2b
>
> So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the patch that would later become commit 536d2173b2b:
>
> http://mid.mail-archive.com/20190321113408.19929-8-lersek@redhat.com
>
> you see the following note in the changelog:
>
> - compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that decompression at
> "make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]
>
> So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes, but now we also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old" for some other build OSes? This is ridiculous.
>
> To be clear, my disagreement is only with the "Fixes" tag. For me, "Fixes" stands for something that, in retrospect, can be proven to have been a bug at the time the code was *originally* committed. But, at the time, taking "bzip2" for granted was *not* a bug. The conditions / circumstances have changed more recently, and the assumption about bzip2 has been invalidated *after* adding a dependency on bzip2.
>
> Nonetheless, thank you for adapting the code to the potential absence of bzip2. Can you perhaps go in some details in the commit message, near "not included in default installations" and "freshly installed systems"? If we can, we should identify the exact distro release where this problem has been encountered (and I wouldn't mind a link to the BZ or ticket under which people agreed to remove bzip2 from the default package set).
bzip2 is no longer a favored compression. If we are trying to pick a
compression that is most likely to be present on any system, go with
gzip. If we are trying to pick a compression that packs tighter and
uncompresses faster, pick xz or zstd. But bzip2 does neither: it packs
slightly tighter than gzip but has slower performance in doing so, and
thus is no longer used as a default compression.
--
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226
Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
2019-11-08 15:43 ` Eric Blake
@ 2019-11-08 17:07 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé @ 2019-11-08 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Blake, Laszlo Ersek, qemu-devel
Cc: qemu-trivial, Thomas Huth, Daniel P . Berrange,
Wainer dos Santos Moschetta, Peter Maydell, Gerd Hoffmann
On 11/8/19 4:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/8/19 5:01 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.
>>
>> We've come full circle. Let me explain:
>>
>>>
>>> Fixes: 536d2173b2b
>>
>> So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the
>> patch that would later become commit 536d2173b2b:
>>
>> http://mid.mail-archive.com/20190321113408.19929-8-lersek@redhat.com
>>
>> you see the following note in the changelog:
>>
>> - compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that
>> decompression at
>> "make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]
>>
>> So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes,
>> but now we also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old"
>> for some other build OSes? This is ridiculous.
>>
>> To be clear, my disagreement is only with the "Fixes" tag. For me,
>> "Fixes" stands for something that, in retrospect, can be proven to
>> have been a bug at the time the code was *originally* committed. But,
>> at the time, taking "bzip2" for granted was *not* a bug. The
>> conditions / circumstances have changed more recently, and the
>> assumption about bzip2 has been invalidated *after* adding a
>> dependency on bzip2.
>>
>> Nonetheless, thank you for adapting the code to the potential absence
>> of bzip2. Can you perhaps go in some details in the commit message,
>> near "not included in default installations" and "freshly installed
>> systems"? If we can, we should identify the exact distro release where
>> this problem has been encountered (and I wouldn't mind a link to the
>> BZ or ticket under which people agreed to remove bzip2 from the
>> default package set).
>
> bzip2 is no longer a favored compression. If we are trying to pick a
> compression that is most likely to be present on any system, go with
> gzip. If we are trying to pick a compression that packs tighter and
> uncompresses faster, pick xz or zstd. But bzip2 does neither: it packs
> slightly tighter than gzip but has slower performance in doing so, and
> thus is no longer used as a default compression.
The problem was with OpenBSD 6.1 which hadn't xz available.
In commit 12745eaa02 Gerd updated the VM to OpenBSD 6.5 and we now have
access to xz. IIRC OSX supported versions also provide xz.
If we want to revert Laszlo's patches and apply his first version (using
xz), we should do that during 5.0 dev cycle, now it is too late.
I'd prefer we simply fix bzip2 for the next release.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
@ 2019-11-08 17:07 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé @ 2019-11-08 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Blake, Laszlo Ersek, qemu-devel
Cc: Peter Maydell, Thomas Huth, Daniel P . Berrange, qemu-trivial,
Wainer dos Santos Moschetta, Gerd Hoffmann
On 11/8/19 4:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/8/19 5:01 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Add a check in ./configure to warn the user if bzip2 is missing.
>>
>> We've come full circle. Let me explain:
>>
>>>
>>> Fixes: 536d2173b2b
>>
>> So this makes me kinda grumpy. If you look at the v3 posting of the
>> patch that would later become commit 536d2173b2b:
>>
>> http://mid.mail-archive.com/20190321113408.19929-8-lersek@redhat.com
>>
>> you see the following note in the changelog:
>>
>> - compress FD files with bzip2 rather than xz, so that
>> decompression at
>> "make install" time succeed on older build OSes too [Peter]
>>
>> So I couldn't use xz because that was "too new" for some build OSes,
>> but now we also can't take bzip2 for granted because that's "too old"
>> for some other build OSes? This is ridiculous.
>>
>> To be clear, my disagreement is only with the "Fixes" tag. For me,
>> "Fixes" stands for something that, in retrospect, can be proven to
>> have been a bug at the time the code was *originally* committed. But,
>> at the time, taking "bzip2" for granted was *not* a bug. The
>> conditions / circumstances have changed more recently, and the
>> assumption about bzip2 has been invalidated *after* adding a
>> dependency on bzip2.
>>
>> Nonetheless, thank you for adapting the code to the potential absence
>> of bzip2. Can you perhaps go in some details in the commit message,
>> near "not included in default installations" and "freshly installed
>> systems"? If we can, we should identify the exact distro release where
>> this problem has been encountered (and I wouldn't mind a link to the
>> BZ or ticket under which people agreed to remove bzip2 from the
>> default package set).
>
> bzip2 is no longer a favored compression. If we are trying to pick a
> compression that is most likely to be present on any system, go with
> gzip. If we are trying to pick a compression that packs tighter and
> uncompresses faster, pick xz or zstd. But bzip2 does neither: it packs
> slightly tighter than gzip but has slower performance in doing so, and
> thus is no longer used as a default compression.
The problem was with OpenBSD 6.1 which hadn't xz available.
In commit 12745eaa02 Gerd updated the VM to OpenBSD 6.5 and we now have
access to xz. IIRC OSX supported versions also provide xz.
If we want to revert Laszlo's patches and apply his first version (using
xz), we should do that during 5.0 dev cycle, now it is too late.
I'd prefer we simply fix bzip2 for the next release.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
2019-11-08 17:07 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
@ 2019-11-08 17:10 ` Peter Maydell
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Peter Maydell @ 2019-11-08 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Cc: Eric Blake, Laszlo Ersek, QEMU Developers, QEMU Trivial,
Thomas Huth, Daniel P . Berrange, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta,
Gerd Hoffmann
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 17:07, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/8/19 4:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > bzip2 is no longer a favored compression. If we are trying to pick a
> > compression that is most likely to be present on any system, go with
> > gzip. If we are trying to pick a compression that packs tighter and
> > uncompresses faster, pick xz or zstd. But bzip2 does neither: it packs
> > slightly tighter than gzip but has slower performance in doing so, and
> > thus is no longer used as a default compression.
>
> The problem was with OpenBSD 6.1 which hadn't xz available.
>
> In commit 12745eaa02 Gerd updated the VM to OpenBSD 6.5 and we now have
> access to xz. IIRC OSX supported versions also provide xz.
>
> If we want to revert Laszlo's patches and apply his first version (using
> xz), we should do that during 5.0 dev cycle, now it is too late.
> I'd prefer we simply fix bzip2 for the next release.
I don't think we should try to use 'xz' because I don't see
the point. We should use something that's generally available,
whether that's bzip2 or gzip. Life's too short to deal with
yet another file compression tool and format.
thanks
-- PMM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
@ 2019-11-08 17:10 ` Peter Maydell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Peter Maydell @ 2019-11-08 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Cc: Thomas Huth, Daniel P . Berrange, QEMU Trivial, QEMU Developers,
Wainer dos Santos Moschetta, Gerd Hoffmann, Laszlo Ersek
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 17:07, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/8/19 4:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > bzip2 is no longer a favored compression. If we are trying to pick a
> > compression that is most likely to be present on any system, go with
> > gzip. If we are trying to pick a compression that packs tighter and
> > uncompresses faster, pick xz or zstd. But bzip2 does neither: it packs
> > slightly tighter than gzip but has slower performance in doing so, and
> > thus is no longer used as a default compression.
>
> The problem was with OpenBSD 6.1 which hadn't xz available.
>
> In commit 12745eaa02 Gerd updated the VM to OpenBSD 6.5 and we now have
> access to xz. IIRC OSX supported versions also provide xz.
>
> If we want to revert Laszlo's patches and apply his first version (using
> xz), we should do that during 5.0 dev cycle, now it is too late.
> I'd prefer we simply fix bzip2 for the next release.
I don't think we should try to use 'xz' because I don't see
the point. We should use something that's generally available,
whether that's bzip2 or gzip. Life's too short to deal with
yet another file compression tool and format.
thanks
-- PMM
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
2019-11-08 17:10 ` Peter Maydell
(?)
@ 2019-11-11 11:51 ` Thomas Huth
2019-11-11 13:33 ` Aleksandar Markovic
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 30+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Huth @ 2019-11-11 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Maydell, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Cc: Daniel P . Berrange, QEMU Trivial, QEMU Developers,
Wainer dos Santos Moschetta, Gerd Hoffmann, Laszlo Ersek
On 08/11/2019 18.10, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 17:07, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 11/8/19 4:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> bzip2 is no longer a favored compression. If we are trying to pick a
>>> compression that is most likely to be present on any system, go with
>>> gzip. If we are trying to pick a compression that packs tighter and
>>> uncompresses faster, pick xz or zstd. But bzip2 does neither: it packs
>>> slightly tighter than gzip but has slower performance in doing so, and
>>> thus is no longer used as a default compression.
>>
>> The problem was with OpenBSD 6.1 which hadn't xz available.
>>
>> In commit 12745eaa02 Gerd updated the VM to OpenBSD 6.5 and we now have
>> access to xz. IIRC OSX supported versions also provide xz.
>>
>> If we want to revert Laszlo's patches and apply his first version (using
>> xz), we should do that during 5.0 dev cycle, now it is too late.
>> I'd prefer we simply fix bzip2 for the next release.
>
> I don't think we should try to use 'xz' because I don't see
> the point. We should use something that's generally available,
> whether that's bzip2 or gzip. Life's too short to deal with
> yet another file compression tool and format.
FWIW, on the weekend, I accidentially came accross this page:
https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html
After reading that, I also don't think anymore that we should switch to
'xz'.
Thomas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
2019-11-11 11:51 ` Thomas Huth
@ 2019-11-11 13:33 ` Aleksandar Markovic
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Aleksandar Markovic @ 2019-11-11 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Huth
Cc: Peter Maydell, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, Daniel P . Berrange,
QEMU Trivial, QEMU Developers, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta,
Gerd Hoffmann, Laszlo Ersek
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2213 bytes --]
On Monday, November 11, 2019, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/2019 18.10, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 17:07, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 11/8/19 4:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>> bzip2 is no longer a favored compression. If we are trying to pick a
> >>> compression that is most likely to be present on any system, go with
> >>> gzip. If we are trying to pick a compression that packs tighter and
> >>> uncompresses faster, pick xz or zstd. But bzip2 does neither: it packs
> >>> slightly tighter than gzip but has slower performance in doing so, and
> >>> thus is no longer used as a default compression.
> >>
> >> The problem was with OpenBSD 6.1 which hadn't xz available.
> >>
> >> In commit 12745eaa02 Gerd updated the VM to OpenBSD 6.5 and we now have
> >> access to xz. IIRC OSX supported versions also provide xz.
> >>
> >> If we want to revert Laszlo's patches and apply his first version (using
> >> xz), we should do that during 5.0 dev cycle, now it is too late.
> >> I'd prefer we simply fix bzip2 for the next release.
> >
> > I don't think we should try to use 'xz' because I don't see
> > the point. We should use something that's generally available,
> > whether that's bzip2 or gzip. Life's too short to deal with
> > yet another file compression tool and format.
>
> FWIW, on the weekend, I accidentially came accross this page:
>
> https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html
>
> After reading that, I also don't think anymore that we should switch to
> 'xz'.
Off topic, but, from the page you linked to:
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it
so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies and the other way is to
make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first
method is far more difficult.
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
when there is no longer anything to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Perhaps we should display these quotes at some highly visible place on our
dev QEMU website. ;)
Aleksandar
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3184 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] configure: Check bzip2 is available
@ 2019-11-11 13:33 ` Aleksandar Markovic
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Aleksandar Markovic @ 2019-11-11 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Huth
Cc: Peter Maydell, Daniel P . Berrange, QEMU Trivial, Laszlo Ersek,
QEMU Developers, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta, Gerd Hoffmann,
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2213 bytes --]
On Monday, November 11, 2019, Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/11/2019 18.10, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 17:07, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 11/8/19 4:43 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> >>> bzip2 is no longer a favored compression. If we are trying to pick a
> >>> compression that is most likely to be present on any system, go with
> >>> gzip. If we are trying to pick a compression that packs tighter and
> >>> uncompresses faster, pick xz or zstd. But bzip2 does neither: it packs
> >>> slightly tighter than gzip but has slower performance in doing so, and
> >>> thus is no longer used as a default compression.
> >>
> >> The problem was with OpenBSD 6.1 which hadn't xz available.
> >>
> >> In commit 12745eaa02 Gerd updated the VM to OpenBSD 6.5 and we now have
> >> access to xz. IIRC OSX supported versions also provide xz.
> >>
> >> If we want to revert Laszlo's patches and apply his first version (using
> >> xz), we should do that during 5.0 dev cycle, now it is too late.
> >> I'd prefer we simply fix bzip2 for the next release.
> >
> > I don't think we should try to use 'xz' because I don't see
> > the point. We should use something that's generally available,
> > whether that's bzip2 or gzip. Life's too short to deal with
> > yet another file compression tool and format.
>
> FWIW, on the weekend, I accidentially came accross this page:
>
> https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html
>
> After reading that, I also don't think anymore that we should switch to
> 'xz'.
Off topic, but, from the page you linked to:
There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it
so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies and the other way is to
make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first
method is far more difficult.
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add, but
when there is no longer anything to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Perhaps we should display these quotes at some highly visible place on our
dev QEMU website. ;)
Aleksandar
>
> Thomas
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3184 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread