[Sugar-devel] Bug 1240354 - SoaS live x86_64 20150706 does not login from live system user

[James Cameron]

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 07:12:18AM +0000, Sam P. wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 4:34 pm James Cameron <[1]quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> 
>     On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:21:19AM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > > On September 3, 2015 at 12:38 AM James Cameron <[2]quozl at laptop.org>
>     wrote:
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 12:11:38AM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote:
>     > > > F22 upgrades clean to 106, feels pretty zippy in a VM. Back to
>     > > > figuring out what is now different in the dependencies given the
>     > > > logs[1] for the builds look more or less the same F21 <-> F23. There
>     > > > has to be a rpm package with a library that was split somewhere,
>     > > > sugar's toolkit wants to use something but is left unsatisfied.
>     > >
>     > > It might be interesting to see if the F23 build of 0.104.1 also has
>     > > the problem on F23.  As further proof that it isn't anything Sugar did.
>     > >
>     > I can get to a cmdline via the bootprompt using the F23 iso, so I'll do
>     the
>     > 104 on F23 test, just not tonight.
>     >
>     > It's not what sugar did, but didn't do yet, adapt to the new build
>     > environment for F23. Is the current recommended sugar development
>     > still sugar-build at EOL'd F20?
> 
>     Good question.  Don't know.  Hopefully someone from Sugar Labs can
>     tell us.
> 
> I'm pretty sure it is.  But most of the maintainers disable broot and just run
> in natively in Fedora.
> 
>     Although sugar-build hides all these kinds of problems by building on
>     the target system instead of packaging.
> 
>     sugar-build is not used when deploying, so it seems unwise to use it
>     for development.  ;-)
> 
> Works fine if you disable broot.  Maybe we should change defaults (no broot for
> Fedora ever).
> 
> Otherwise there is really nothing wrong with a bunch of build scripts and
> package install scripts IMHO :)

Oh good, so you're saying there is a way we can build Sugar into a
deployment image without having to use RPMs for it?  Or do you mean
that sugar-build can generate the RPMs?

How do we avoid placing unnecessary build dependencies into the
deployment image?

> 
> Thanks,
> Sam
> 
>     > > Comparing the logs of 0.104.1 build for x86_64 between F22 and F23,
>     > > the only interesting change that springs up is;
>     > >
>     > > -LDFLAGS='-Wl,-z,relro '
>     > > +LDFLAGS='-Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld'
>     > >
>     > > Doesn't seem related to the reported problem, however.
>     >
>     > I tend to agree, but I'm not sure of the full effect of the flag. I
>     > think there is a package that was split and a dependence needed by
>     > sugar/toolkit moved to a new sub-package and is not in what is
>     > declared as (Build)Requires anymore. If this is true then the new
>     > sub-package should now be used in the spec file somewhere, just
>     > finding the package.
> 
>     Hmm, doesn't seem related to the sugarext library missing from the
>     expected directory.  Maybe I've misunderstood the problem.
> 
>     --
>     James Cameron
>     [3]http://quozl.linux.org.au/
>     _______________________________________________
>     Sugar-devel mailing list
>     [4]Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>     [5]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> 
> References:
> 
> [1] mailto:quozl at laptop.org
> [2] mailto:quozl at laptop.org
> [3] http://quozl.linux.org.au/
> [4] mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> [5] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/