[Buildroot] Autobuilder news

[Buildroot] Autobuilder news

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

Two news about the autobuilders:

 * The Crosstool-NG external toolchain configurations have been updated
   and slightly extended. Yann E. Morin has provided me with a good set
   of more up-to-date toolchains generated by Crosstool-NG, and I've
   added them to the Free Electrons autobuilders, as a replacement for
   the old ones. The new configurations are:

     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv5-ctng-linux-gnueabi.config
     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv6-ctng-linux-uclibcgnueabi.config
     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv7-ctng-linux-gnueabihf.config
     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/i486-ctng-linux-uclibc.config
     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/i686-ctng-linux-gnu.config
     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/mips64el-ctng_n32-linux-gnu.config
     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/mips64el-ctng_n64-linux-gnu.config
     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/mipsel-ctng-linux-uclibc.config
     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/powerpc-ctng_e500v2-linux-gnuspe.config
     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/powerpc-ctng-linux-uclibc.config
     http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/x86_64-ctng_locales-linux-gnu.config

 * As stated in another e-mail, the Free Electrons autobuilder
   machine has been updated. It has twice the amount of RAM it used
   to have (16 GB replaced by 32 GB), and a better storage system (SAS
   10k disks instead of regular disks). Hopefully this should allow to
   have more configurations tested every day.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] Autobuilder news

[Luca Ceresoli]

Hi Thomas, Yann, Arnout, all,

Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Two news about the autobuilders:
>
>   * The Crosstool-NG external toolchain configurations have been updated
>     and slightly extended. Yann E. Morin has provided me with a good set
>     of more up-to-date toolchains generated by Crosstool-NG, and I've
>     added them to the Free Electrons autobuilders, as a replacement for
>     the old ones. The new configurations are:
>
>       http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv5-ctng-linux-gnueabi.config
>       http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv6-ctng-linux-uclibcgnueabi.config
>       http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv7-ctng-linux-gnueabihf.config

With reference to the discussion I started a couple of weeks ago [1],
there is now a non-Linaro external EABIhf toolchain on the autobuilders.

I checked it and it does not seem to produce the same problem I met,
because it ships ld-linux-armhf.so.3, not ld-linux.so.3, but I don't
think it is a multilib toolchain, is it?

Is it a habit in modern EABIhf toolchains to name the dynamic linker
ld-linux-armhf instead of ld-linux. This would explain why I have a
problem that nobody else seems to have here.

[1] 
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.uclibc.buildroot/82456/focus=82471

-- 
Luca

[Buildroot] Autobuilder news

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 04/05/14 22:36, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Two news about the autobuilders:
> 
>  * The Crosstool-NG external toolchain configurations have been updated
>    and slightly extended. Yann E. Morin has provided me with a good set
>    of more up-to-date toolchains generated by Crosstool-NG, and I've
>    added them to the Free Electrons autobuilders, as a replacement for
>    the old ones. The new configurations are:
> 
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv5-ctng-linux-gnueabi.config
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv6-ctng-linux-uclibcgnueabi.config
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/armv7-ctng-linux-gnueabihf.config
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/i486-ctng-linux-uclibc.config
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/i686-ctng-linux-gnu.config
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/mips64el-ctng_n32-linux-gnu.config
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/mips64el-ctng_n64-linux-gnu.config
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/mipsel-ctng-linux-uclibc.config
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/powerpc-ctng_e500v2-linux-gnuspe.config
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/powerpc-ctng-linux-uclibc.config
>      http://autobuild.buildroot.org/toolchains/configs/free-electrons/x86_64-ctng_locales-linux-gnu.config

 Hi Thomas,

 Is it possible that you installed new binaries with the same name but a
different ctng configuration? That's a bit annoying because it breaks
reproducibility... It's OK to remove the old toolchains, but it would be good if
the new ones would have a different name.

 Regards,
 Arnout

> 
>  * As stated in another e-mail, the Free Electrons autobuilder
>    machine has been updated. It has twice the amount of RAM it used
>    to have (16 GB replaced by 32 GB), and a better storage system (SAS
>    10k disks instead of regular disks). Hopefully this should allow to
>    have more configurations tested every day.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Thomas
> 


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F

[Buildroot] Autobuilder news

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,

On Sat, 10 May 2014 22:28:27 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

>  Is it possible that you installed new binaries with the same name but a
> different ctng configuration? That's a bit annoying because it breaks
> reproducibility... It's OK to remove the old toolchains, but it would be good if
> the new ones would have a different name.

No: the new toolchains have a different tarball names, and the old
toolchain tarballs were all kept at their original location with their
original name. So normally all the builds from the Free Electrons build
server should be reproducible, including the ones using older
Crosstool-NG toolchains.

Have you noticed any specific problem?

Thanks,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] Autobuilder news

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,

On Sat, 10 May 2014 22:28:27 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

>  Is it possible that you installed new binaries with the same name but a
> different ctng configuration? That's a bit annoying because it breaks
> reproducibility... It's OK to remove the old toolchains, but it would be good if
> the new ones would have a different name.

No, it is not possible. The new toolchains have a different tarball
name, and all the tarballs from the previous ctng configurations have
been kept. So all builds made on the Free Electrons build server should
be fully reproducible.

Have you found any specific issue?

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] Autobuilder news

[Arnout Vandecappelle]

On 11/05/14 18:29, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,
> 
> On Sat, 10 May 2014 22:28:27 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> 
>>  Is it possible that you installed new binaries with the same name but a
>> different ctng configuration? That's a bit annoying because it breaks
>> reproducibility... It's OK to remove the old toolchains, but it would be good if
>> the new ones would have a different name.
> 
> No, it is not possible. The new toolchains have a different tarball
> name, and all the tarballs from the previous ctng configurations have
> been kept. So all builds made on the Free Electrons build server should
> be fully reproducible.
> 
> Have you found any specific issue?

 No, just that when I tried one of the new toolchains it didn't download because
it was already there. But I guess I must have forgotten that I had downloaded it
before, then.

 Sorry for the noise.

 Regards,
 Arnout


-- 
Arnout Vandecappelle                          arnout at mind be
Senior Embedded Software Architect            +32-16-286500
Essensium/Mind                                http://www.mind.be
G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium           BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven
LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle
GPG fingerprint:  7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F

[Buildroot] Autobuilder news

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,

On Sun, 11 May 2014 22:37:35 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

> > No, it is not possible. The new toolchains have a different tarball
> > name, and all the tarballs from the previous ctng configurations have
> > been kept. So all builds made on the Free Electrons build server should
> > be fully reproducible.
> > 
> > Have you found any specific issue?
> 
>  No, just that when I tried one of the new toolchains it didn't download because
> it was already there. But I guess I must have forgotten that I had downloaded it
> before, then.

Do you remember which one specifically?

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] Autobuilder news

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Hello,

Here are a few news about the autobuilders:

 * Two new build machines are being added to the infrastructure, thanks
   to the contributions of Buildroot developers. One is managed by
   Richard Braun and has already been reporting a number of build
   results since a day or two. The other machine is managed by
   Nathaniel Roach and is currently being verified by running local
   builds not yet reported to autobuild.buildroot.org. The builds
   should start to be reported tomorrow. Thanks to Richard's machine,
   the average number of builds per day is now in the order of 130-150
   per day, compared to 100-120 before.

 * Thanks to a patch from Fabio Porcedda, the configuration files
   presented by autobuild.buildroot.org for each build no longer
   contain the BR2_DL_DIR and BR2_JLEVEL options that were specific to
   the build machine. It makes easier the reproduction of a build
   result (as a reminder, there is a script available at
   http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot-test/plain/utils/br-reproduce-build
   to reproduce builds).

 * I've added a quick and dirty script to more easily remove bogus
   builds from the build database
   (http://git.buildroot.net/buildroot-test/tree/utils/remove.php). In
   the past, it was quite annoying for me to remove build results, as I
   had to do manual SQL queries and removal of build result artifacts
   in the filesystem. Now, it's much easier with this script, which
   I've already used to remove the bogus build results generated by
   Nathaniel attempts to use the autobuild-run script.

 * I've added a check on autobuild.buildroot.org to detect and reject
   build failures caused by memory allocation problems. Whenever the
   end of the build log contains "fork: cannot allocate memory", the
   build result is rejected. This should avoid some bogus build
   failures reported by gcc10, which is under heavy load and therefore
   make build fails for a reason not related to Buildroot.

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com