Hongjun, This looks suspect: 03:32:31 APIGEN vlibmemory/memclnt.api.h 03:32:31 JSON API vlibmemory/memclnt.api.json 03:32:31 SyntaxError: invalid syntax (vppapigentab.py, line 11) 03:32:31 WARNING:vppapigen:/w/workspace/vpp-verify-master-opensuse/build-root/rpmbuild/BUILD/vpp-18.04/build-data/../src/vlibmemory/memclnt.api:0:1: Old Style VLA: u8 data[0]; 03:32:31 Makefile:8794: recipe for target 'vlibmemory/memclnt.api.h' failed 03:32:31 make[5]: *** [vlibmemory/memclnt.api.h] Error 1 03:32:31 make[5]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs.... 03:32:31
Can you try running vppapigen manually on that platform? Vppapigen —debug —input memclnt.api ... Cheers Ole > On 26 Jan 2018, at 06:38, Ni, Hongjun <hongjun...@intel.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > It seems that OpenSUSE build failed for this patch: > https://jenkins.fd.io/job/vpp-verify-master-opensuse/1285/console > > Please help to take a > > From: vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io [mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io] On > Behalf Of Dave Barach (dbarach) > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 11:19 PM > To: Marco Varlese <mvarl...@suse.de>; Gabriel Ganne <gabriel.ga...@enea.com>; > Billy McFall <bmcf...@redhat.com> > Cc: Damjan Marion (damarion) <damar...@cisco.com>; vpp-dev > <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] openSUSE build fails > > Dear Marco, > > Thanks very much... > > Dave > > From: Marco Varlese [mailto:mvarl...@suse.de] > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:06 AM > To: Dave Barach (dbarach) <dbar...@cisco.com>; Gabriel Ganne > <gabriel.ga...@enea.com>; Billy McFall <bmcf...@redhat.com> > Cc: Damjan Marion (damarion) <damar...@cisco.com>; vpp-dev > <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] openSUSE build fails > > We (at SUSE) are currently pushing an update to 2.2.11 for openSUSE in our > repositories. > Once that's confirmed to be upstream, I will push a new patch to the > ci-management repo to have the indent package upgraded to the latest version > and re-enable the "checkstyle". > > > Cheers, > Marco > > On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 13:51 +0000, Dave Barach (dbarach) wrote: > With a bit of fiddling, I was able to fix gerrit 9440 so that indent 2.2.10 > and 2.2.11 appear to produce identical results... > > HTH... Dave > > From: vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io [mailto:vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io] On > Behalf Of Gabriel Ganne > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 8:42 AM > To: Billy McFall <bmcf...@redhat.com>; Marco Varlese <mvarl...@suse.de> > Cc: Damjan Marion (damarion) <damar...@cisco.com>; vpp-dev > <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> > Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] openSUSE build fails > > Hi, > > > > If you browse the source http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/indent/ > > The tag 2.2.11 is there, the source seems updated regularly. > > > > Best regards, > > > > -- > > Gabriel Ganne > > From: vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev-boun...@lists.fd.io> on behalf of > Billy McFall <bmcf...@redhat.com> > Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 2:26:42 PM > To: Marco Varlese > Cc: Damjan Marion (damarion); vpp-dev > Subject: Re: [vpp-dev] openSUSE build fails > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Marco Varlese <mvarl...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi Damjan, > > On Fri, 2017-12-15 at 09:06 +0000, Damjan Marion (damarion) wrote: > > > > On 15 Dec 2017, at 08:52, Marco Varlese <mvarl...@suse.de> wrote: > > Damjan, > > On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 16:04 +0000, Damjan Marion (damarion) wrote: > > Folks, > > I'm hearing from multiple people that OpenSUSE verify job is failing (again). > I haven't heard (or read) anything over the mailing list otherwise I would > have > looked into it. > Also, if you hear anything like that you can always ping me directly and I > will > look into it... > > yes, people pinging me... > See > https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/9440/ > > also: > > https://gerrit.fd.io/r/#/c/9813/ - abandoned but it shows that something was > wrong > > Ok, so just summarizing our conversation on IRC for others too. > > That issue is connected to the different versions of INDENT (C checkstyle) > installed on the different distros. > > openSUSE runs 2.2.10 whilst CentOS and Ubuntu run 2.2.11 > > What strikes me is that the upstream repo https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/indent/ has > 2.2.10 as last revision. > Our indent package maintainer is looking at possible other sources where > Indent could "live" these days and will let me know as soon as she finds out. > > @Thomas Herbert, would you know the source where the Indent package on CentOS > come from? Maybe that could help... > > Marco, I can't find the source. I'll look around a little more. From CentoOS > 7.4: > > $ sudo yum provides indent > : > indent-2.2.11-13.el7.x86_64 : A GNU program for formatting C code > Repo : base > : > > $ sudo repoquery -i indent > Name : indent > Version : 2.2.11 > Release : 13.el7 > Architecture: x86_64 > Size : 359131 > Packager : CentOS BuildSystem <http://bugs.centos.org> > Group : Applications/Text > URL : http://indent.isidore-it.eu/beautify.html <-- BUSTED LINK > Repository : base > Summary : A GNU program for formatting C code > Source : indent-2.2.11-13.el7.src.rpm > Description : > Indent is a GNU program for beautifying C code, so that it is easier to > read. Indent can also convert from one C writing style to a different > one. Indent understands correct C syntax and tries to handle incorrect > C syntax. > > Install the indent package if you are developing applications in C and > you want a program to format your code. > > > > > > > So generally speaking i would like to question having verify jobs for multiple > distros. > Is there really a value in compiling same code on different distros. Yes I > know gcc version can be different, > but that can be addressed in simpler way, if it needs to be addressed at all. > > More distros means more moving parts and bigger chance that something will > fail. > Well, I am not sure how to interpret this but (in theory) a build should be > reproducible in the first place and I should not worry about problems with > build > outcomes. It doesn't only affect openSUSE and I raised it many times over the > mailing-list; when you need to run "recheck" multiple times to have a build > succeed. IMHO the issue should be addressed and not solved by putting it under > the carpet... > > We all know that we have extreme fragile system, as obviously we are not be > able to > fix that in almost 2 years, so as long as the system is as it increasing > complexity doesn't help > and just causes frustration. > > Also it cost resources.... > That is a different matter and if that's the case then it should be discussed > seriously; raising this argument now, after having had people investing their > times in getting stuff up and running isn't really a cool thing... > > Marco, decision to have verify jobs on 2 distros was made much before you > joined the project, > and I don't remember serious decision on that topic, it might be that at that > time > we were simply unexperienced, or maybe we didn't expect infra to be so > fragile. > > Fact is that now we have ridiculous situation, 2 verify jobs says patch is > OK, 3rd one says > it is not. Which one to trust? > > So please don't take this personal, i know you invested time to get suse > build working, but still > I think it is a valid question to ask, do we really need 3 verify jobs. > Should we have 4 tomorrow > if somebody invest his time to do verify job on Archlinux for example? > > Thanks, > > Damjan > > > > -- > Marco V > > SUSE LINUX GmbH | GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton > HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409, Nürnberg > > _______________________________________________ > vpp-dev mailing list > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev > > -- > Marco V > > SUSE LINUX GmbH | GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton > HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409, Nürnberg > _______________________________________________ > vpp-dev mailing list > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
_______________________________________________ vpp-dev mailing list vpp-dev@lists.fd.io https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
