Обсуждение: Buildfarm vs. Linux Distro classification
Lately there have been some buildfarm registrations for "Debian testing/unstable" or similarly described machines. I have kicked back against these, as the description seems to me to be far too open ended. Likewise, I also have difficulty with Gentoo because a version there seems to describe a build system but not any reasonably bounded set of software. The whole point of classifying buildfarm machines is so that we can pin down problems to some class of machines, so I'm not really sure what I should do in these cases that essentially represent highly mobile targets. Thoughts? cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Lately there have been some buildfarm registrations for "Debian > testing/unstable" or similarly described machines. I have kicked back > against these, as the description seems to me to be far too open ended. > Likewise, I also have difficulty with Gentoo because a version there > seems to describe a build system but not any reasonably bounded set of > software. The whole point of classifying buildfarm machines is so that > we can pin down problems to some class of machines, so I'm not really > sure what I should do in these cases that essentially represent highly > mobile targets. > > Thoughts? > Well, the one downside to kicking these machines is that we won't get representation from the varying glibc/gcc combinations. It *almost* seems that we care more about: Archicteture 32/64bit (I could be running 32bit on my Athlon64) GCC version glibc version ? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > cheers > > andrew > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutionssince 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Lately there have been some buildfarm registrations for "Debian > testing/unstable" or similarly described machines. I have kicked back > against these, as the description seems to me to be far too open > ended. Then again, it would be useful to actually test on Debian testing/unstable (or pre-release branches of other OS), because that would (a) expose problems with new toolchains and such earlier than in released versions, and (b) provide advance testing for when testing becomes the release. Consider, the number of users that will run 8.2 on Debian stable is probably going to be less than the number of users who will run 8.2 on what today is testing. I agree that the lack of a fixed version designation is unsatisfactory. I'm not sure whether that is actually necessary, though. If PostgreSQL doesn't work on some machine, then that's a problem anyway. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> Lately there have been some buildfarm registrations for "Debian >> testing/unstable" or similarly described machines. I have kicked back >> against these, as the description seems to me to be far too open >> ended. > > Then again, it would be useful to actually test on Debian > testing/unstable (or pre-release branches of other OS), because that > would (a) expose problems with new toolchains and such earlier than in > released versions, and (b) provide advance testing for when testing > becomes the release. Consider, the number of users that will run 8.2 > on Debian stable is probably going to be less than the number of users > who will run 8.2 on what today is testing. > > I agree that the lack of a fixed version designation is unsatisfactory. > I'm not sure whether that is actually necessary, though. If PostgreSQL > doesn't work on some machine, then that's a problem anyway. well I think Andrew is more scared of having multiple boxes on the buildfarm all stating to be "Debian testing" or "Debian unstable" but without much information on how regulary those boxes are actually synced to those moving/changing branches and causing discussions on "why is it suddenly failung on that box but not on the other". There might be quite a difference between a 2 month old testing and a recent one for example. However - we already have some precedence on the buildfarm for that (like the various -current BSD-members) Stefan
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > well I think Andrew is more scared of having multiple boxes on the > buildfarm all stating to be "Debian testing" or "Debian unstable" but > without much information on how regulary those boxes are actually synced > to those moving/changing branches and causing discussions on "why is it > suddenly failung on that box but not on the other". It might make sense to attach the version information (in this case, gcc, glibc, kernel versions) to each particular test run, rather than to each particular farm member. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: > >> well I think Andrew is more scared of having multiple boxes on the >> buildfarm all stating to be "Debian testing" or "Debian unstable" but >> without much information on how regulary those boxes are actually synced >> to those moving/changing branches and causing discussions on "why is it >> suddenly failung on that box but not on the other". > > It might make sense to attach the version information (in this case, > gcc, glibc, kernel versions) to each particular test run, rather than to > each particular farm member. that is a good idea generally but that information might not be available in a portable way on all platforms (and even than we might want to have version information on things/libs like readline,zlib,ldap, too) ... Stefan
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> I agree that the lack of a fixed version designation is unsatisfactory.
> I'm not sure whether that is actually necessary, though. If PostgreSQL
> doesn't work on some machine, then that's a problem anyway.
The buildfarm script already seems to record various info such as
"uname" output on-the-fly. If we could get it to record compiler
version ("gcc -v" is easy, but equivalent incantations for vendor
compilers might be harder to find) and a few other facts on-the-fly,
I think the instability of the platforms might not be that big a deal.
In practice, it seems that only Linux-based distros have bought into
this idea that bleeding-edge tools are a good thing, so solutions that
work only on Linux may be sufficient.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
> The buildfarm script already seems to record various info such as
> "uname" output on-the-fly. If we could get it to record compiler
> version ("gcc -v" is easy, but equivalent incantations for vendor
> compilers might be harder to find) and a few other facts on-the-fly,
> I think the instability of the platforms might not be that big a
> deal.
The configure script actually tries to get the compiler to put out a
version number, and you can see the result of that in config.log.
For other components, however, it seems impossible to get the version
numbers across platforms.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Quoth peter_e@gmx.net (Peter Eisentraut):
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Lately there have been some buildfarm registrations for "Debian
>> testing/unstable" or similarly described machines. I have kicked back
>> against these, as the description seems to me to be far too open
>> ended.
>
> Then again, it would be useful to actually test on Debian
> testing/unstable (or pre-release branches of other OS), because that
> would (a) expose problems with new toolchains and such earlier than
> in released versions, and (b) provide advance testing for when
> testing becomes the release. Consider, the number of users that
> will run 8.2 on Debian stable is probably going to be less than the
> number of users who will run 8.2 on what today is testing.
I suppose I'm partly to blame for bringing this one up; I proposed
doing a build on a box at home and at work (one IA-32, one AMD-64),
both running something of a mix of Debian unstable/testing.
> I agree that the lack of a fixed version designation is unsatisfactory.
> I'm not sure whether that is actually necessary, though. If PostgreSQL
> doesn't work on some machine, then that's a problem anyway.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah. There are a somewhat limited number of sorts of problems that
could cause this:
- I could be running an icky, out of date set of libraries or such.
In which case there's not much value in trying to fix things on the PostgreSQL side.
- A change perhaps forthcoming in some future Debian release has busted something.
Knowing that sooner is better than knowing that later...
- Such a problem may be ephermal; it may be something I need to report to someone _else_ upstream.
For instance, a bleeding-edge readline may have just "drawn blood," and I need to let them know...
It seems to me that there is some value in putting together a script
that tries to identify some of the interesting bits of the toolchain.
Here's a "Mark 0" version:
================================================
#!/bin/sh
FINDGCCVERSION=`$CC --version`
KERNELVERSION=`uname -a`
ARCH=`arch`
# Uncomment one of the following...
#DEBIAN
#LIBC=`dpkg -l libc6`
#REDHAT/SuSE/Fedora
#LIBC=`rpm -q libc6`
#Slackware, etc
#LIBC=`ls -l /lib/libc.so.*`
================================================
I'll bet one could get more information pretty cheaply, including
release names, and such, by recognizing the existence of
distribution-specific files in /etc, such as /etc/debian_release,
/etc/SuSE-release, /etc/fedora-release, /etc/redhat-release....
It's not necessarily vital to recognize every combination of anything
that's plausible; if someone has an oddball system, reporting the
details are their problem...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxfinances.info")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/x.html
"Natives who beat drums to drive off evil spirits are objects of scorn
to smart Americans who blow horns to break up traffic jams."
-- Unknown
Christopher Browne wrote: > It seems to me that there is some value in putting together a script > that tries to identify some of the interesting bits of the toolchain. Yeah; but why not just a bunch of commands, some of which are expected to work on any particular machine, and save the whole output as a single string? It's not very clean, but should get the important details. To support a "new machine," just add more commands to the script. A simple version of this, based on your Mark 0, could be: uname -a $CC --version $CC -V $CC -v ls -l /lib/libc.so* No need to comment/uncomment anything. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > Christopher Browne wrote: > >> It seems to me that there is some value in putting together a script >> that tries to identify some of the interesting bits of the toolchain. > > Yeah; but why not just a bunch of commands, some of which are expected > to work on any particular machine, and save the whole output as a single > string? It's not very clean, but should get the important details. To > support a "new machine," just add more commands to the script. > > A simple version of this, based on your Mark 0, could be: > > uname -a > $CC --version > $CC -V > $CC -v > ls -l /lib/libc.so* > > No need to comment/uncomment anything. I would have said "ldd postgres" would work on any ELF system and show you all the library so versions it depends on. I guess that only helps if it actually builds and then fails the regression tests -- not if the build fails. On Debian it would be useful to do something like below. Though note that a) this depends on having a postgres package installed which the build machines may not have and b) it shows the libraries that package depends on not the versions of the *-dev packages installed. stark@stark:~$ reportbug --offline --template postgresql-8.1 2>/dev/null | sed '1,/^-- System Information/d' Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.17.7-swsusp2 Locale: LANG=en_GB, LC_CTYPE=en_GB (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Versions of packages postgresql-8.1 depends on: ii libc6 2.3.6.ds1-4 GNU C Library: Shared libraries ii libcomerr2 1.39-1 common error description library ii libkrb53 1.4.3-8 MIT Kerberos runtime libraries ii libpam0g 0.79-3.1 Pluggable Authentication Modules l ii libpq4 8.1.4-5 PostgreSQL C client library ii libssl0.9.8 0.9.8b-2 SSL shared libraries ii postgresql-client-8.1 8.1.4-4 front-end programs for PostgreSQL ii postgresql-common 57 manager for PostgreSQL database cl postgresql-8.1 recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com