FTBFS in mock but not a real EL5 system
 

Hi all!

Node.js upstream recently switched from hardcoding LINUX_VERSION_CODE
to checking that __NR_accept4 is defined when checking that the
"accept4" syscall is available. (see patch here [1])

This breaks building for EL5 in mock on F16 (see log tail here [2]),
but not on a real CentOS 5 system. A quick grep of
$MOCK_ROOT/usr/include indicates that __NR_accept4 isn't defined, as
it should be, so I'm not sure what's going wrong here, or if it's a
problem in mock or upstream.

Thanks!
-T.C.

[1] https://github.com/joyent/libuv/commit/d5b26154
[2] http://tchol.org/nodejs/accept4_ftbfs

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

FTBFS in mock but not a real EL5 system
 

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:40:43 -0700
"T.C. Hollingsworth" <tchollingsworth@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> Node.js upstream recently switched from hardcoding LINUX_VERSION_CODE
> to checking that __NR_accept4 is defined when checking that the
> "accept4" syscall is available. (see patch here [1])
>
> This breaks building for EL5 in mock on F16 (see log tail here [2]),
> but not on a real CentOS 5 system. A quick grep of
> $MOCK_ROOT/usr/include indicates that __NR_accept4 isn't defined, as
> it should be, so I'm not sure what's going wrong here, or if it's a
> problem in mock or upstream.

Well, if something fails in mock, but works on a real system it sounds
like missing BuildRequires. Perhaps kernel-headers?

In any case, not sure what this has to do with EPEL... we don't ship
Node.js. ;)

kevin
_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

FTBFS in mock but not a real EL5 system
 

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@scrye.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 15:40:43 -0700
> "T.C. Hollingsworth" <tchollingsworth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> Node.js upstream recently switched from hardcoding LINUX_VERSION_CODE
>> to checking that __NR_accept4 is defined when checking that the
>> "accept4" syscall is available. (see patch here [1])
>>
>> This breaks building for EL5 in mock on F16 (see log tail here [2]),
>> but not on a real CentOS 5 system. *A quick grep of
>> $MOCK_ROOT/usr/include indicates that __NR_accept4 isn't defined, as
>> it should be, so I'm not sure what's going wrong here, or if it's a
>> problem in mock or upstream.
>
> Well, if something fails in mock, but works on a real system it sounds
> like missing BuildRequires. Perhaps kernel-headers?

Thanks, I'll try that.

> In any case, not sure what this has to do with EPEL... we don't ship
> Node.js. ;)

Not yet, anyway. ;-)

Sorry, I couldn't think of a better place to ask about EL5 mock issues.

-T.C.

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list