Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#993014: cifs-utils non-parallel FTBFS
6 views
Skip to first unread message
L. van Belle
Aug 22, 2022, 10:30:03 AM8/22/22
to
I can confirm the patch works.
I've tested on a Debian Bullseye build with
cifs-utils 7.0 from https://ftp.samba.org/pub/linux-cifs/cifs-utils/
I refreshed patch 001.
Added the patch shown buy Helmut.
And I builded against Debian Bullseye with parallel=7 and parallel=1
Only I can't upload the sources to salsa.. Sorry.
@Michael Tokarev can you add this one?
I can put the build and logs online if you want.
Greetz,
Louis
I've tested on a Debian Bullseye build with
cifs-utils 7.0 from https://ftp.samba.org/pub/linux-cifs/cifs-utils/
I refreshed patch 001.
Added the patch shown buy Helmut.
And I builded against Debian Bullseye with parallel=7 and parallel=1
Only I can't upload the sources to salsa.. Sorry.
@Michael Tokarev can you add this one?
I can put the build and logs online if you want.
Greetz,
Louis
Michael Tokarev
Aug 25, 2022, 4:20:03 AM8/25/22
to
Control: tag -1 + pending
22.08.2022 17:11, L. van Belle wrote:
> I can confirm the patch works.
>
> I've tested on a Debian Bullseye build with
> cifs-utils 7.0 from https://ftp.samba.org/pub/linux-cifs/cifs-utils/
>
> I refreshed patch 001.
> Added the patch shown buy Helmut.
> And I builded against Debian Bullseye with parallel=7 and parallel=1
Here's the upstream commit which fixes the problem:
commit aeaa786aceb0ea781ded2c151fb68f6b34880ad4
Author: lizhe <liz...@huawei.com>
Date: Tue May 26 11:54:11 2020 +0800
cifs-utils: fix probabilistic compiling error
When we compile cifs-utils, we may probabilistic
encounter install error like:
cd ***/sbin && ln -sf mount.cifs mount.smb3
***/sbin: No such file or directory
The reason of this problem is that if we compile
cifs-utils using multithreading, target
'install-sbinPROGRAMS' may be built after
target 'install-exec-hook' of the main Makefile.
Target 'install-sbinPROGRAMS' will copy the
executable file 'mount.cifs' to the $(ROOTSBINDIR),
which target 'install-exec-hook' will do the
'ln' command on.
This patch add the dependency of target
'install-exec-hook' to ensure the correct order
of the compiling.
Signed-off-by: lizhe <liz...@huawei.com>
diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
index a95782d..8a17e73 100644
--- a/Makefile.am
+++ b/Makefile.am
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ endif
SUBDIRS = contrib
-install-exec-hook:
+install-exec-hook: install-sbinPROGRAMS
(cd $(DESTDIR)$(ROOTSBINDIR) && ln -sf mount.cifs mount.smb3)
install-data-hook:
I think both are wrong but both do the job.
Now, the question is: do we need to fix this for bullseye?
It smells like there's no need to, no?
Thanks,
/mjt
22.08.2022 17:11, L. van Belle wrote:
> I can confirm the patch works.
>
> I've tested on a Debian Bullseye build with
> cifs-utils 7.0 from https://ftp.samba.org/pub/linux-cifs/cifs-utils/
>
> I refreshed patch 001.
> Added the patch shown buy Helmut.
> And I builded against Debian Bullseye with parallel=7 and parallel=1
commit aeaa786aceb0ea781ded2c151fb68f6b34880ad4
Author: lizhe <liz...@huawei.com>
Date: Tue May 26 11:54:11 2020 +0800
cifs-utils: fix probabilistic compiling error
When we compile cifs-utils, we may probabilistic
encounter install error like:
cd ***/sbin && ln -sf mount.cifs mount.smb3
***/sbin: No such file or directory
The reason of this problem is that if we compile
cifs-utils using multithreading, target
'install-sbinPROGRAMS' may be built after
target 'install-exec-hook' of the main Makefile.
Target 'install-sbinPROGRAMS' will copy the
executable file 'mount.cifs' to the $(ROOTSBINDIR),
which target 'install-exec-hook' will do the
'ln' command on.
This patch add the dependency of target
'install-exec-hook' to ensure the correct order
of the compiling.
Signed-off-by: lizhe <liz...@huawei.com>
diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
index a95782d..8a17e73 100644
--- a/Makefile.am
+++ b/Makefile.am
@@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ endif
SUBDIRS = contrib
-install-exec-hook:
+install-exec-hook: install-sbinPROGRAMS
(cd $(DESTDIR)$(ROOTSBINDIR) && ln -sf mount.cifs mount.smb3)
install-data-hook:
I think both are wrong but both do the job.
Now, the question is: do we need to fix this for bullseye?
It smells like there's no need to, no?
Thanks,
/mjt
L. van Belle
Aug 25, 2022, 5:00:03 AM8/25/22
to
> I think both are wrong but both do the job.
Yes, I think also, but that’s not something I can do.
This "fix" works fine so far, but yeah, upstream should fix it.
> Now, the question is: do we need to fix this for bullseye?
> It smells like there's no need to, no?
but I hardly do cifs-utils packages. its only that I needed it now on 1 server.
The shown fix, commit aeaa786aceb0ea781ded2c151fb68f6b34880ad4
is the patch I added.
and cifs-utils 7.0 also fails to build without that patch with parallel=1
And yes, we can leave Bullseye versions alone, but would be nice to add this one to unstable.
At least the patch fixed this bug report 😊
Greetz,
Louis
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Pkg-samba-maint <pkg-samba-maint-bounces+belle=bazuin.nl@alioth-
> lists.debian.net> Namens Debian Bug Tracking System
> Verzonden: donderdag 25 augustus 2022 10:15
> Aan: Michael Tokarev <m...@tls.msk.ru>
> CC: pkg-sam...@lists.alioth.debian.org
> Onderwerp: [Pkg-samba-maint] Processed: Re: cifs-utils non-parallel FTBFS
>
> Processing control commands:
>
> > tag -1 + pending
> Bug #993014 [src:cifs-utils] cifs-utils non-parallel FTBFS Added tag(s) pending.
>
> --
> 993014: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=993014
> Debian Bug Tracking System
> Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pkg-samba-maint mailing list
> Pkg-sam...@alioth-lists.debian.net
> https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-samba-maint
Michael Tokarev
Aug 27, 2022, 11:30:06 AM8/27/22
to
27.08.2022 03:35, Santiago Vila пишет:
> Hi. Now that this is finally fixed in sid, here is a proposed diff for bullseye, including changelog.
Heh. The changelog includes entry by me.. it is not fair for your contribution, I think.. :)
BTW, should we drop the .1 from -3.1+deb11u2 release number?
Thanks,
/mjt
> Hi. Now that this is finally fixed in sid, here is a proposed diff for bullseye, including changelog.
Heh. The changelog includes entry by me.. it is not fair for your contribution, I think.. :)
BTW, should we drop the .1 from -3.1+deb11u2 release number?
Thanks,
/mjt
0 new messages