On Dec 18, 2024, at 10:12, Bjoern A. Zeeb <b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2024, Mark Millard wrote: > > Hi Mark, ports@, > >> As an example context, I am referencing: >> >> https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/ampere2/build.html?mastername=main-armv7-default&build=peb87cb7f3aa2_s48d92db080 >> >> which is showing wifi-firmware-kmod-release-20241017 2 times in Ignored >> ports: >> >> # Package Origin Skipped Reason >> 1623 wifi-firmware-kmod-release-20241017 net/wifi-firmware-kmod@release 0 >> Dependent port net/wifi-firmware-iwlwifi-kmod@8000 | >> wifi-firmware-iwlwifi-kmod-8000-20241017.1500029_1 ignored >> 1629 wifi-firmware-kmod-release-20241017 net/wifi-firmware-kmod@release 0 >> Dependent port net/wifi-firmware-iwlwifi-kmod@22000 | >> wifi-firmware-iwlwifi-kmod-22000-20241017.1500029_1 ignored > > Funny. I'd expect it to try all or just the furst dependency and if > that gets ingnored then to also ignore the rest right away. > Parallel built problems in pourdierer?
I'll use the log file context to try a different wording to try to make clear what I'm reporting. I'm also CC'ing Bryan Drewery so he can cross check if I'm just wrong about something. > >> I'll note that here is only one: >> >> https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/ampere2/data/main-armv7-default/peb87cb7f3aa2_s48d92db080/logs/wifi-firmware-kmod-release-20241017.log >> >> and it is for the net/wifi-firmware-iwlwifi-kmod@22000 when looking at its >> content. I appears that log file content replaced the earlier content for >> net/wifi-firmware-iwlwifi-kmod@8000 (because of the lack of a unique log >> file name). > > Are you saying "unique log file name" here as the port name is distinct > with the name of the flavor? As I understand things, package names for a flavor are supposed to indicate the flavor explicitly in some way: such a one-to-one correspondence is required as I understand things. net/wifi-firmware-iwlwifi-kmod@8000 is using the package name: wifi-firmware-kmod-release-20241017 also: net/wifi-firmware-iwlwifi-kmod@22000 is using the package name: wifi-firmware-kmod-release-20241017 The 2 flavors have the same package name. An example of the consequences: Go try to find a log file in: https://pkg-status.freebsd.org/ampere2/data/main-armv7-default/peb87cb7f3aa2_s48d92db080/logs/ for the check of: net/wifi-firmware-iwlwifi-kmod@8000 There is not one. That is because the package name does not indicate the flavor at all and that in turn means that the log file name does not contain a reference to the flavor name and the second check replace's the first check's file. As I understand it, poudriere's infrastructure does not support having multiple flavors of a port contributing to the same package for the port (by name). > >> Similarly, that same page is showing wifi-firmware-kmod-20241017 3 times in >> Skipped ports: >> >> # Package Origin Reason >> 727 wifi-firmware-kmod-20241017 net/wifi-firmware-kmod@default >> wifi-firmware-ath10k-kmod-qca9377_hw10-20240513.1500029_1 >> 728 wifi-firmware-kmod-20241017 net/wifi-firmware-kmod@default >> wifi-firmware-ath10k-kmod-qca6174_hw21-20240513.1500029_1 >> 729 wifi-firmware-kmod-20241017 net/wifi-firmware-kmod@default >> wifi-firmware-iwlwifi-kmod-bz-20241017.1500029_1 >> >> (Skipped Packages do not get log files.) >> >> >> As near as I can tell, Package names should be unique, never showing such >> duplicates on this type of pkg-status page and each Ignored port row should >> get its own log file left behind. > > Sorry, so far I do no understand where the actual problem is? Again, do > you mean *package* log files names? I seem to have messed up for the Skipped ports in my reporting, in that the 3 reports do all share the same flavor naming and the same package naming: It is not an example like the Ignored ports. My mistake. Please ignore the Skipped ports part of my report. > Those dependency packages for wifi-firmware-kmod-NNNNNNNN respectively > wifi-firmware-kmod-release-NNNNNNNN are not built for armv7: > > Makefile.inc:ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= aarch64 amd64 i386 > > so hopefully the "parent" (metaport) gets skipped as well once the first > one "fails" with the IGNORE. > > > If pourdierer does not fully grasp it, so be it. The port names are > unique with the two flavours there are within the ports framework. > I'd expect you'd have to file a pourdriererer bug then? > > > Otherwise if I get this entirely wrong, can you please explain it more > precisely? === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
