Hi Peter, why are you working on a weekend?!? ;-) Gives me not time to help you. Ok, after writing my last mail i started another build, this time with a deactivated clean.sh. This seems to work (at least for the problem reported, more later). On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 03:52:05PM +0200, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
rm@fabula.de wrote:
| //entering make-host-1.sh | //building cross-compiler, and doing first genesis | make-host-1.sh: line 29: /LISP/DEBS/sbcl-0.9.0.39/stage1/sbcl: No such file or directory
Damn. The clean.sh script is a little too aggressive: ... find. \( \ ... -name '?*.core' -o \ ... -name 'sbcl' -o \ ... -name 'local-target-features.lisp-expr' \) -print | xargs rm -f
So it will find the stage1/sbcl stuff and remove it. To protect against this I do:
mv output/sbcl.core src/runtime/sbcl stage1/ chmod 000 stage1 sh clean.sh || true chmod 700 stage1 # rebuild again with new version
Maybe the chmod 000 is not enough to protect it? I use "debuild --rootcmd=fakeroot -k4B729625" to build the package. I can imagine that if you use for example sudo it might not protect stage1?
Hmm, i saw this and this was my first suspicion (and, removing clean.sh seems to help). But i still don't see how clean.sh can actually remove files from such a protected directory. I just quickly checked from the command line and as soon as stage1 has 000 perms find doesn't find the files. Actually, walking manually through these steps of the build everything works fine. Miraculous :-/ Ok, the one other thing that's fragile: the script tests/run-tests.sh invokes the freshly build sbcl with the following arguments: --noinform --sysinit /dev/null --userinit /dev/null --noprint Hmm, there's definitely a --disable-debugger missing here, otherwise the build process will break into the debugger as soon as a test fails, and at least one test fails on Linux/PPC: debugger invoked on a SIMPLE-ERROR in thread 7520: The assertion (RAISES-ERROR? (SCALE-FLOAT 1.0 MOST-POSITIVE-FIXNUM) FLOATING-POINT-OVERFLOW) failed. test (pure.lisp files) failed, expected 104 return code, got 0 Nothing to worry (so i was told ...) the same test passes on the repl - i think the test isn't stateless so other tests influnence this. But, anyway, with a disabled clean.sh i managed to get a working sbcl Debian package :-) Thanks RalfD
Groetjes, Peter
-- signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/ "God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave Aronson|