-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Build fails on mupen64plus ui-console #33
Comments
Good idea to compile in a clean chroot. Did you follow this wiki? It fails because of I did yesterday a I get
So normally the file |
When I follow the classic way described in the wiki, it works in a chroot:
Here is the output. Search for |
Yes, I used the "Convenience way", using the |
A slightly modified version of your PKGBUILD script is compiling. I changed the dependencies to how they are described in Marley's Readme. Here is the output. However, the top-level configure script does not have an install target. |
Here is a comparison of the two builds. It looks like the environments have slightly different environment. If you look at page 5 where the actual configure run starts, different settings are detected. That's weird. |
What I see is that you also have multilib in your chroot, and I do not (since this doesn't list any need for multilib). The way you're meant to use it is updating the PKGBUILD and re-run either |
Can you check if this script compiles ok for you? Let me know if you intend on making a pull request. Since the script originally came from you, I feel that contribution should be recorded properly. You can remove The multilib in the manually chroot is because I have it enabled on my system. It is not needed. I don't think this explains why the "convenient way" and the "classical way" have different libs. The x86_64 libs shouldn't be affected. Testing with extra-x86_64-build makes sense to see if the PKGBUILD works. The manual chroot way is to test if folks can simply clone the repo and build it per the readme. |
https://gist.github.com/kattjevfel/7e0e6b2ac3819417f76b455c7b440a15 slightly different error with that pkgbuild also namcap can only look at pacman packages, so it won't be of any use until package() actually does anything, |
Your original PKGBUILD script actually works for me: console output There is something in your settings different. We should make a comparison of the above console output and yours. Can you post your entire console output, please? I configured in gnome-terminal CTRL+SHIFT+A to select all. Simply selecting it with the mouse takes long. I'm using an old git repository to dump the output text files because none of the paste-bin websites accepts 5MB text input. Did you alter any config files on your machine to change the behavior of the AUR tools? |
The error that your getting is because you invoke make with -j16. I will fix it. In the meantime, if you could quickly confirm my theory and set the CPU proc number in your AUR build environment to 1 and let me know if it compiles. |
(hopefully) fixed with 99f76b4 |
While I do have my main makepkg.conf set to If I'm reading that commit right you're now forcing to use all cores? That might not be the greatest idea since not everyone want their computer (potentially a laptop with a bad cooling solution) to be maxed out for a long time. My opinion is that it should default to 1 core and then the user can do whatever they choose. I'll have to try to force it to run with 1 core later since It's getting way to late into the night as I'm writing this, but I'm fairly certain it was already compiling with only 1 core since it'd been a lot faster otherwise.. |
I fixed it already upstream, so you can just try with your normal setting No, it didn't slip through. I actually saw the same error message about config.o missing today when I closed out issue #30. Mednafen and mupen64 were indeed running only on one core up until today, but that is fixed now. Mupen64plus was even choking on the -j16 as you noticed. The default I would like to keep at using all cores for a simple |
Thinking about what you said regarding the number of CPU used for make, you might have a point. The Ryzen 7 Threadripper reports 128 CPU cores. The memory usage for make -j128 would go through the roof. Compiling with 12 cores, the memory usage on my machine goes up by about 2GB. Multiply that number by 128/12 and you're at ~22GB. If the machine has not enough memory, it would freeze up. And I realized what I said above about the make flags from the command line superceeding the settings in Makefile.am, this is only true for the front end files and mednafen. Mupen64plus, ppsspp, dolphin, and pcsx2 are hardcoded to the available CPU cores:
|
I addressed your feedback and changed the default CPU cores to be used for compiling to one core. Marley now supports the number of CPU cores specified via
This is because the configure run already compiles the library
I recommended you add Refer to commit e3880b9 I'd say issue #33 is fully addressed and can be closed. There is more to review for the Arch package build script, please refer to #5. |
Correct, I finally got around to testing it in my chroot and all is well. |
Trying to compile this project on Arch Linux as discussed on email, using the dependencies and commands in the readme.
Compiled in a clean chroot using
extra-x86_64-build
.Full log for that segment: https://gist.github.com/kattjevfel/56e9394aae8bd6eda8f02da42eb7f66d
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: