2012/7/13 Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi>:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.16.4.3
> Followup-For: Bug #617299
>
> I also encounter the same bug when trying to build kernel 3.2.21 from upstream tarball:
>
> $ LOCALVERSION=-git-686-pae make deb-pkg
> [...]
> dpkg-deb: building package `firmware-linux' in `../firmware-linux_3.2.21-git-686-pae-1_i386.deb'.
> dpkg-deb: building package `linux-headers-3.2.21-git-686-pae' in `../linux-headers-3.2.21-git-686-pae_3.2.21-git-686-pae-1_i386.deb'.
> dpkg-deb: building package `linux-libc-dev' in `../linux-libc-dev_3.2.21-git-686-pae-1_i386.deb'.
> dpkg-deb: building package `linux-image-3.2.21-git-686-pae' in `../linux-image-3.2.21-git-686-pae_3.2.21-git-686-pae-1_i386.deb'.
> dpkg-deb (subprocess): data member: internal gzip write error: 'File not found'
> dpkg-deb: error: subprocess <compress> from tar -cf returned error exit status 2
> make[1]: *** [deb-pkg] Error 2
> make: *** [deb-pkg] Error 2

This seems to be caused by either 'tar' or 'gzip' using /tmp to build
the package. Since recent Debian systems default to using tmpfs for
/tmp, systems with insufficient memory or with another process using
all available memory resources will make the build fail. Would there
perhaps be a way to make this process use /var/tmp or some other
normal storage space to avoid these nonsensical failures?



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPZXPQd1ee5WTvTXyR-rJonqiD=RRrtf4=FzVj7f4T05gBPg+w@mail.gmail.com

2012/7/13 Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi>:
> 2012/7/13 Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi>:
>> Package: dpkg
>> Version: 1.16.4.3
>> Followup-For: Bug #617299
>>
>> I also encounter the same bug when trying to build kernel 3.2.21 from upstream tarball:
>>
>> $ LOCALVERSION=-git-686-pae make deb-pkg
>> [...]
>> dpkg-deb: building package `firmware-linux' in `../firmware-linux_3.2.21-git-686-pae-1_i386.deb'.
>> dpkg-deb: building package `linux-headers-3.2.21-git-686-pae' in `../linux-headers-3.2.21-git-686-pae_3.2.21-git-686-pae-1_i386.deb'.
>> dpkg-deb: building package `linux-libc-dev' in `../linux-libc-dev_3.2.21-git-686-pae-1_i386.deb'.
>> dpkg-deb: building package `linux-image-3.2.21-git-686-pae' in `../linux-image-3.2.21-git-686-pae_3.2.21-git-686-pae-1_i386.deb'.
>> dpkg-deb (subprocess): data member: internal gzip write error: 'File not found'
>> dpkg-deb: error: subprocess <compress> from tar -cf returned error exit status 2
>> make[1]: *** [deb-pkg] Error 2
>> make: *** [deb-pkg] Error 2
>
> This seems to be caused by either 'tar' or 'gzip' using /tmp to build
> the package. Since recent Debian systems default to using tmpfs for
> /tmp, systems with insufficient memory or with another process using
> all available memory resources will make the build fail. Would there
> perhaps be a way to make this process use /var/tmp or some other
> normal storage space to avoid these nonsensical failures?

Actually, this feels like an upstream kernel 3.2 bug: as a test, I
purposely disabled TMPFS for /tmp just to see if the kernel package
would finally build as expected. It did, except that the resulting DEB
is a whopping 488MB in size, compared to 22MB for the stock Debian
linux-image-3.2.0-3-686-pae built using the exact same .config file.

When I built another kernel using the 3.5-rc6 tree instead, the build
produced a kernel package similar in size to the stock Debian one, so
I suspect that the issue lies in kernel 3.2's build scripts and was
evidently fixed recently.

Would the people on debian-kernel@l.d.o perhaps know more about this?

Martin-Éric



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAPZXPQcU33y9-+6DHo9wBVVbjk0CHgnkQjg8JBr0qVhKnYSYaA@mail.gmail.c om">http://lists.debian.org/CAPZXPQcU33y9-+6DHo9wBVVbjk0CHgnkQjg8JBr0qVhKnYSYaA@mail.gmail.c om

Hi,

Martin-Éric Racine wrote:

> Actually, this feels like an upstream kernel 3.2 bug: as a test, I
> purposely disabled TMPFS for /tmp just to see if the kernel package
> would finally build as expected. It did, except that the resulting DEB
> is a whopping 488MB in size, compared to 22MB for the stock Debian
> linux-image-3.2.0-3-686-pae built using the exact same .config file.

That's because the Debian packaging strips debugging symbols into a
separate -dbg package.

If you use "scripts/config --disable DEBUG_INFO" (or manually make the
same setting in "make nconfig"), both the build tree and the resulting
deb will be much smaller.

Hope that helps,
Jonathan



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120713194129.GB30693@burratino

Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi> (13/07/2012):
> This seems to be caused by either 'tar' or 'gzip' using /tmp to build
> the package. Since recent Debian systems default to using tmpfs for
> /tmp, systems with insufficient memory or with another process using
> all available memory resources will make the build fail. Would there
> perhaps be a way to make this process use /var/tmp or some other
> normal storage space to avoid these nonsensical failures?

Manpage reading time:

TMPDIR If set, dpkg will use it as the directory in which to create
temporary files and directories.

Mraw,
KiBi.

2012/7/13 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>
>> Actually, this feels like an upstream kernel 3.2 bug: as a test, I
>> purposely disabled TMPFS for /tmp just to see if the kernel package
>> would finally build as expected. It did, except that the resulting DEB
>> is a whopping 488MB in size, compared to 22MB for the stock Debian
>> linux-image-3.2.0-3-686-pae built using the exact same .config file.
>
> That's because the Debian packaging strips debugging symbols into a
> separate -dbg package.

I'm already aware of the effects of stripping binaries. However, you
gotta admit that 488MB compared to 22MB is just ridiculous; something
is definitely broken in those 3.2 build scripts.

Martin-Éric



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPZXPQfyGSscLOx3xeORxz3rH4YbRjQt_hZaz-b6i2tRr+n=9w@mail.gmail.com

(putting back the CC to the bug, which will probably need to be
reassigned to 'linux')
2012/7/13 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
> (dropping dpkg maintainers from cc)
> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> 2012/7/13 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
>>> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>
>>>> the resulting DEB
>>>> is a whopping 488MB in size, compared to 22MB for the stock Debian
>>>> linux-image-3.2.0-3-686-pae built using the exact same .config file.
>>>
>>> That's because the Debian packaging strips debugging symbols into a
>>> separate -dbg package.
>>
>> I'm already aware of the effects of stripping binaries. However, you
>> gotta admit that 488MB compared to 22MB is just ridiculous; something
>> is definitely broken in those 3.2 build scripts.
>
> Are the build scripts responsible for the size of debugging symbols?
> I don't follow.
>
> Or do you mean that the size of the kernel -dbg packages is
> ridiculous?

I mean that the size of the kernel package produced by 'make deb-pkg'
from the 3.2 vanilla tree, even after disabling debug symbols, is
highly suspicious, compared to the stock Debian kernel with the same
source.

Martin-Éric



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPZXPQcBC4=Zf5SYJndvRwJdshYufokMJHc8UrqCbHwBzJEAv A@mail.gmail.com

Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> (putting back the CC to the bug, which will probably need to be
> reassigned to 'linux')
> 2012/7/13 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
>> (dropping dpkg maintainers from cc)
>> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:

>>> I'm already aware of the effects of stripping binaries. However, you
>>> gotta admit that 488MB compared to 22MB is just ridiculous; something
>>> is definitely broken in those 3.2 build scripts.
>>
>> Are the build scripts responsible for the size of debugging symbols?
>> I don't follow.
>>
>> Or do you mean that the size of the kernel -dbg packages is
>> ridiculous?
>
> I mean that the size of the kernel package produced by 'make deb-pkg'
> from the 3.2 vanilla tree, even after disabling debug symbols, is
> highly suspicious, compared to the stock Debian kernel with the same
> source.

Ok, I missed that. What is that size?

Just to confirm, are you certain CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO is disabled?



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120713200721.GD30693@burratino

2012/7/13 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> (putting back the CC to the bug, which will probably need to be
>> reassigned to 'linux')
>> 2012/7/13 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
>>> (dropping dpkg maintainers from cc)
>>> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>
>>>> I'm already aware of the effects of stripping binaries. However, you
>>>> gotta admit that 488MB compared to 22MB is just ridiculous; something
>>>> is definitely broken in those 3.2 build scripts.
>>>
>>> Are the build scripts responsible for the size of debugging symbols?
>>> I don't follow.
>>>
>>> Or do you mean that the size of the kernel -dbg packages is
>>> ridiculous?
>>
>> I mean that the size of the kernel package produced by 'make deb-pkg'
>> from the 3.2 vanilla tree, even after disabling debug symbols, is
>> highly suspicious, compared to the stock Debian kernel with the same
>> source.
>
> Ok, I missed that. What is that size?

As written above, the custom package came out to 488MB compared to
22MB for linux-image-3.2.0-3-686-pae from Wheezy.

> Just to confirm, are you certain CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO is disabled?

Yup.

Martin-Éric



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAPZXPQe76THt-3mn=uUo9gfX85oVdGBjuX+6V1jphBtLYaxXJQ@mail.gmail.c om

Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> 2012/7/13 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:

>> Just to confirm, are you certain CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO is disabled?
>
> Yup.

Ok. Please attach your .config so we can reproduce this.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120713202956.GA31387@burratino

2012/7/13 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
> Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> 2012/7/13 Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>:
>
>>> Just to confirm, are you certain CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO is disabled?
>>
>> Yup.
>
> Ok. Please attach your .config so we can reproduce this.

I have already stated that the .config is copied as-is from the stock
Debian 3.2 kernel's config. The only change I made was to disable
debug symbols, as above, and to patch one gspca C file as asked by
upstream for a test.

Martin-Éric



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAPZXPQcK1ppO+q3cYDfDyZgR9RC1jJcU1d1b4wRXarqPCtGgi Q@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAPZXPQcK1ppO+q3cYDfDyZgR9RC1jJcU1d1b4wRXarqPCtGgi Q@mail.gmail.com