From: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> To: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> Cc: "openembeded-devel" <openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org>, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [oe] [meta-python][PATCH v2 1/3] meta-python: Add python-pyflame recipe Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 15:22:06 +0930 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1527832326.1573871.1392638136.4D3CA167@webmail.messagingengine.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAMKF1sr-k=TK-wyUtDJMUT8DK=EcS3A08jCJD-xjOD_Aw-MbQw@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, at 14:07, Khem Raj wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > Hi Khem, > > > > Thanks for testing. > > > > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, at 02:18, Khem Raj wrote: > >> fails to build on qemumips > >> > > > > Do I have to support MIPS for the recipe to be acceptable? Is there some way we can limit the recipe to architectures for which the software is known to work? > > Ideally we tend to support the core architectures and mips is one of > them, so unless there is a very basic > reason e.g. missing support etc. we tend to fix the problems, Doesn't the fact that the source doesn't build indicate missing support? I don't know what C library you were building against, but glibc for mips doesn't contain a definition for struct user_regs{,_struct} in sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/mips/sys/user.h. It's a bit nasty, as the header very clearly states that user.h is purely for gdb, but pyflame is making use of it anyway. Patch 2/3 fixes the pyflame source for 32-bit ARM, where the struct has a different name, but at least it's present. I haven't investigated whether we could pull in the appropriate header from the kernel instead of libc, but again because ARM can be made to work with relatively little effort I hadn't bothered. > so I would suggest to see if it can be fixed preferably > if not then we should cite the reason and probably we can add mips to > incompatible hosts but that is last resort > once a recipe goes in it becomes a maintenance work and I would like > to make it as light as possible. I could go down the path of working this out for mips, but fixing mips falls outside the scope of what I was doing at the time (I'm several yaks deep here), and given the problem is external to pyflame itself I'm not terribly motivated to fix it. So I feel at this point it's either blacklist mips or we leave the recipe out of tree. As an alternative to making mips work, can I assist with the associated maintenance hassle in some way? Cheers, Andrew
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> To: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> Cc: openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org, openembeded-devel <openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org> Subject: Re: [meta-python][PATCH v2 1/3] meta-python: Add python-pyflame recipe Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 15:22:06 +0930 [thread overview] Message-ID: <1527832326.1573871.1392638136.4D3CA167@webmail.messagingengine.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAMKF1sr-k=TK-wyUtDJMUT8DK=EcS3A08jCJD-xjOD_Aw-MbQw@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, at 14:07, Khem Raj wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au> wrote: > > Hi Khem, > > > > Thanks for testing. > > > > On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, at 02:18, Khem Raj wrote: > >> fails to build on qemumips > >> > > > > Do I have to support MIPS for the recipe to be acceptable? Is there some way we can limit the recipe to architectures for which the software is known to work? > > Ideally we tend to support the core architectures and mips is one of > them, so unless there is a very basic > reason e.g. missing support etc. we tend to fix the problems, Doesn't the fact that the source doesn't build indicate missing support? I don't know what C library you were building against, but glibc for mips doesn't contain a definition for struct user_regs{,_struct} in sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/mips/sys/user.h. It's a bit nasty, as the header very clearly states that user.h is purely for gdb, but pyflame is making use of it anyway. Patch 2/3 fixes the pyflame source for 32-bit ARM, where the struct has a different name, but at least it's present. I haven't investigated whether we could pull in the appropriate header from the kernel instead of libc, but again because ARM can be made to work with relatively little effort I hadn't bothered. > so I would suggest to see if it can be fixed preferably > if not then we should cite the reason and probably we can add mips to > incompatible hosts but that is last resort > once a recipe goes in it becomes a maintenance work and I would like > to make it as light as possible. I could go down the path of working this out for mips, but fixing mips falls outside the scope of what I was doing at the time (I'm several yaks deep here), and given the problem is external to pyflame itself I'm not terribly motivated to fix it. So I feel at this point it's either blacklist mips or we leave the recipe out of tree. As an alternative to making mips work, can I assist with the associated maintenance hassle in some way? Cheers, Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-01 5:52 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2018-05-10 6:37 [meta-python][PATCH v2 1/3] meta-python: Add python-pyflame recipe Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-10 6:37 ` Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-10 6:37 ` [meta-python][PATCH v2 2/3] meta-python: Port python-pyflame to 32-bit ARM Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-10 6:37 ` Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-10 6:37 ` [meta-python][PATCH v2 3/3] meta-python: Make python-pyflame cope with prelinked ELFs Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-10 6:37 ` Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-29 11:48 ` [meta-python][PATCH v2 1/3] meta-python: Add python-pyflame recipe Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-29 11:48 ` Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-29 17:04 ` [oe] " Khem Raj 2018-05-29 17:04 ` Khem Raj 2018-05-29 22:03 ` [oe] " Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-29 22:03 ` Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-29 22:23 ` [oe] " Khem Raj 2018-05-29 22:23 ` Khem Raj 2018-05-29 22:29 ` [oe] " Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-29 22:29 ` Andrew Jeffery 2018-05-31 16:48 ` [oe] " Khem Raj 2018-05-31 16:48 ` Khem Raj 2018-06-01 2:36 ` [oe] " Andrew Jeffery 2018-06-01 2:36 ` Andrew Jeffery 2018-06-01 4:37 ` [oe] " Khem Raj 2018-06-01 4:37 ` Khem Raj 2018-06-01 5:52 ` Andrew Jeffery [this message] 2018-06-01 5:52 ` Andrew Jeffery 2018-06-22 21:12 ` [oe] " Khem Raj 2018-06-22 21:12 ` Khem Raj 2018-09-04 9:38 ` [oe] " Martin Jansa 2018-09-04 9:38 ` Martin Jansa 2018-09-04 18:51 ` [oe] " Khem Raj 2018-09-04 18:51 ` Khem Raj 2018-09-10 18:43 ` [meta-python][PATCH] python-pyflame: skip for aarch64 as well Martin Jansa
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=1527832326.1573871.1392638136.4D3CA167@webmail.messagingengine.com \ --to=andrew@aj.id.au \ --cc=openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org \ --cc=openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org \ --cc=raj.khem@gmail.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.