[Bug 1081500] Re: Add autopkgtest for mutual rebuild-testing amongst glibc, linux-libc-dev, gcc, and binutils

[Launchpad Bug Tracker]

This bug was fixed in the package linux - 3.7.0-4.12

---------------
linux (3.7.0-4.12) raring; urgency=low

  [ Tim Gardner ]

  * Revert "[Config] Use -j1 for headers_install"
  * Revert "[Config] install-arch-headers needs a valid config"
    Strayed into the weeds in search of the root cause of the periodic
    build failure.
    Fixes powerpc FTBS introduced in -4.11.
  * [Config] hmake -j1
    The kernel makefile appears to have parallel dependency
    problems for the install_headers target. This appears to be root
    cause for a periodic build failure on N-way machines.
 -- Leann Ogasawara <leann.ogasawara at canonical.com>   Tue, 27 Nov 2012 12:33:06 -0800

** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
       Status: Fix Committed => Fix Released

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is subscribed to eglibc in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1081500

Title:
  Add autopkgtest for mutual rebuild-testing amongst glibc, linux-libc-
  dev, gcc, and binutils

Status in Automated Testing of Ubuntu Packages:
  In Progress
Status in “binutils” package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in “eglibc” package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released
Status in “gcc-4.7” package in Ubuntu:
  New
Status in “linux” package in Ubuntu:
  Fix Released

Bug description:
  Adam just suggested the following:

  infinity        pitti: I'd suggest (since things like "try to rebuild the whole archive" would be pointless) they their tests should consist of each one triggering a rebuild test of the other two.
  infinity        pitti: If upgrading any of those three manages to keep the testsuite of the others passing, that's a win.
  infinity: i. e. the test script woudl more or less be "apt-get build-dep binutils; apt-get source -b binutils", right?
  infinity        pitti: (This came up today after I just spent hours fixing a regression in glibc due to the new gcc, and the inverse happens all the time too)
  infinity        pitti: Yeahp.
  infinity        pitti: Oh, and linux-libc-dev (so, the linux source package) should also trigger those three to a rebuild test, same reason.
  infinity        pitti: If linux-libc-dev's headers survive the GCC and glibc testsuites, they're good enough for regular users. :P
  infinity        (And if they break regular users but not the toolchain, I'd humbly suggest the users are wrong)
  infinity        Definitely would have been nice to know when gcc and the kernel were uploaded (so, a couple of weeks ago) that they broke glibc, instead of finding out today while I was uploading for other reasons.
  infinity        pitti: To cut down on the pain, we could potentially refine the tests to do something like only build a single pass of libc6 and run the tests, only build a single kernel, etc.  Most of these things take so effin' long cause they build 4 times.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/auto-package-testing/+bug/1081500/+subscriptions