Dear TW/i586 users and hackers,
The latest submission of Firefox that reached Factory unfortunately declates i586 as an excluded arch. The build fails on this architecture.
This means unless somebody steps up and helps the Firefox maintainer with relevant fixes to get this back in shape, there won't be a Firefox build left for i586 users.
I hope there will be somebody around to help out and keep this alive.
Cheers, Dominique
Refs: https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/1043934 https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1206600
On Dec 21, 2022, at 4:14 PM, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar dimstar@opensuse.org wrote:
Dear TW/i586 users and hackers,
The latest submission of Firefox that reached Factory unfortunately declates i586 as an excluded arch. The build fails on this architecture.
This means unless somebody steps up and helps the Firefox maintainer with relevant fixes to get this back in shape, there won't be a Firefox build left for i586 users.
I hope there will be somebody around to help out and keep this alive.
FWIW, it builds on Debian unstable on i686, so in general, it should be possible.
See: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid
Adrian
Hi,
Am 21.12.22 um 16:33 schrieb Adrian Glaubitz:
On Dec 21, 2022, at 4:14 PM, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar dimstar@opensuse.org wrote:
Dear TW/i586 users and hackers,
The latest submission of Firefox that reached Factory unfortunately declates i586 as an excluded arch. The build fails on this architecture.
This means unless somebody steps up and helps the Firefox maintainer with relevant fixes to get this back in shape, there won't be a Firefox build left for i586 users.
I hope there will be somebody around to help out and keep this alive.
FWIW, it builds on Debian unstable on i686, so in general, it should be possible.
See: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid
it's always possible by patching. This is what Debian did in that case as well.
So I can import that patch as well meanwhile. But it's always a timing issue. I want to submit FF on release day and very often it's not possible to get a fix in time.
Wolfgang
On 12/21/22 16:56, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
FWIW, it builds on Debian unstable on i686, so in general, it should be possible.
See: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid
it's always possible by patching. This is what Debian did in that case as well.
So I can import that patch as well meanwhile. But it's always a timing issue. I want to submit FF on release day and very often it's not possible to get a fix in time.
It's always a good idea to look at Debian unstable when it comes to Firefox. The maintainer there, Mike Homney, is also a Firefox developer and Mozilla employee. So, he usually has an idea how to fix such issues.
Adrian
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, 17:31:27 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 12/21/22 16:56, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
FWIW, it builds on Debian unstable on i686, so in general, it should be possible.
See: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid
it's always possible by patching. This is what Debian did in that case as well.
So I can import that patch as well meanwhile. But it's always a timing issue. I want to submit FF on release day and very often it's not possible to get a fix in time.
It's always a good idea to look at Debian unstable when it comes to Firefox. The maintainer there, Mike Homney, is also a Firefox developer and Mozilla employee. So, he usually has an idea how to fix such issues.
to be honest, that's not a fix! As Wolfgang pointed out, such failures should be identified and fixed during the release phase. Adding this as a patch after release doesn't smell too good to me...
Adrian
Cheers.
l8er manfred
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, 17:37:52 +0100, Manfred Hollstein wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, 17:31:27 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 12/21/22 16:56, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
FWIW, it builds on Debian unstable on i686, so in general, it should be possible.
See: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid
it's always possible by patching. This is what Debian did in that case as well.
So I can import that patch as well meanwhile. But it's always a timing issue. I want to submit FF on release day and very often it's not possible to get a fix in time.
It's always a good idea to look at Debian unstable when it comes to Firefox. The maintainer there, Mike Homney, is also a Firefox developer and Mozilla employee. So, he usually has an idea how to fix such issues.
to be honest, that's not a fix! As Wolfgang pointed out, such failures should be identified and fixed during the release phase. Adding this as a patch after release doesn't smell too good to me...
FWIW, it would have been a good opportunity for him to add it to the 108.1 release...
Adrian
Cheers.
l8er manfred
On 12/21/22 17:37, Manfred Hollstein wrote:
So I can import that patch as well meanwhile. But it's always a timing issue. I want to submit FF on release day and very often it's not possible to get a fix in time.
It's always a good idea to look at Debian unstable when it comes to Firefox. The maintainer there, Mike Homney, is also a Firefox developer and Mozilla employee. So, he usually has an idea how to fix such issues.
to be honest, that's not a fix! As Wolfgang pointed out, such failures should be identified and fixed during the release phase. Adding this as a patch after release doesn't smell too good to me...
I haven't looked at Mike's particular fix for the i386 issue.
What's the problem?
Adrian
Hi Adrian,
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, 17:43:18 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 12/21/22 17:37, Manfred Hollstein wrote:
So I can import that patch as well meanwhile. But it's always a timing issue. I want to submit FF on release day and very often it's not possible to get a fix in time.
It's always a good idea to look at Debian unstable when it comes to Firefox. The maintainer there, Mike Homney, is also a Firefox developer and Mozilla employee. So, he usually has an idea how to fix such issues.
to be honest, that's not a fix! As Wolfgang pointed out, such failures should be identified and fixed during the release phase. Adding this as a patch after release doesn't smell too good to me...
I haven't looked at Mike's particular fix for the i386 issue.
What's the problem?
as I wrote in my second e-mail, patches like this would be a perfect candidate to be included in another minor release such as 108.1 - which has been released in the meantime. If he is a Mozilla employee and a Firefox developer, he should have pushed such a patch long ago *before* the release - but that's just my opinion...
Adrian
HTH, cheers.
l8er manfred
On Wed, 2022-12-21 at 15:33 +0000, Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On Dec 21, 2022, at 4:14 PM, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar dimstar@opensuse.org wrote:
Dear TW/i586 users and hackers,
The latest submission of Firefox that reached Factory unfortunately declates i586 as an excluded arch. The build fails on this architecture.
This means unless somebody steps up and helps the Firefox maintainer with relevant fixes to get this back in shape, there won't be a Firefox build left for i586 users.
I hope there will be somebody around to help out and keep this alive.
FWIW, it builds on Debian unstable on i686, so in general, it should be possible.
See: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid
For the love of all that is holy, can you please quit with your endless posts on this list comparing topic-of-the-day to Debian?
openSUSE is not Debian, nor does it wish to be.
If you think there is benefit in diffing the Firefox package in Debian and openSUSE and finding what would fix openSUSE's i586 build, then great, do that, and submit the fixes..
Do the work, don't expect others to do it just because you tell them to
Please cease filling up this list with otherwise pointless mails
Regards,
Richard
On 12/22/22 10:21, Richard Brown wrote:
FWIW, it builds on Debian unstable on i686, so in general, it should be possible.
See: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=firefox&suite=sid
For the love of all that is holy, can you please quit with your endless posts on this list comparing topic-of-the-day to Debian?
I don't see the point. Other distributions exist and it should be perfectly normal to cooperate with others.
openSUSE is not Debian, nor does it wish to be.
That's not the point. The point is to cooperate.
If you think there is benefit in diffing the Firefox package in Debian and openSUSE and finding what would fix openSUSE's i586 build, then great, do that, and submit the fixes..
Do the work, don't expect others to do it just because you tell them to
I didn't tell anyone to do anything. I was merely pointing out that there is already a bug fix out for this particular issue.
Please cease filling up this list with otherwise pointless mails
No, sorry. If you don't want to read my mails, add a filter.
Adrian
Hi,
Am 21.12.22 um 18:21 schrieb Manfred Hollstein:
Hi Adrian,
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, 17:43:18 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
On 12/21/22 17:37, Manfred Hollstein wrote:
So I can import that patch as well meanwhile. But it's always a timing issue. I want to submit FF on release day and very often it's not possible to get a fix in time.
It's always a good idea to look at Debian unstable when it comes to Firefox. The maintainer there, Mike Homney, is also a Firefox developer and Mozilla employee. So, he usually has an idea how to fix such issues.
to be honest, that's not a fix! As Wolfgang pointed out, such failures should be identified and fixed during the release phase. Adding this as a patch after release doesn't smell too good to me...
I haven't looked at Mike's particular fix for the i386 issue.
What's the problem?
as I wrote in my second e-mail, patches like this would be a perfect candidate to be included in another minor release such as 108.1 - which has been released in the meantime. If he is a Mozilla employee and a Firefox developer, he should have pushed such a patch long ago *before* the release - but that's just my opinion...
Just to address a few points from the conversation:
I check Fedora and Debian repos once in a while. I also sometimes chat with Mike and Martin as I know both from personal meetings from the past. The main point is as I pointed out the timing and apparently mozilla's way to handle such build issues. I cannot tell why those are only found after a release or if they are found earlier, why they are not addressed directly upstream before a release. I can only assume that upstream does not care much about some architectures.
And yes, part of the problem is also that I'm constrained in time. Firefox releases are happening every 4-5 weeks and 90% are failing to build in less common architectures. If my daily work would be to keep Firefox building along it certainly would be easier since I would be able to identify those issues sooner by building the beta tree every day during those 4 weeks.
In any case: - Dimstar's post here was a reaction on me excluding i386 from the build - from my side that was primarily because I don't see why a massive amount of users should be blocked from getting (security) updates over an undefined period of time until i386 gets eventually fixed - while I see good intentions in the reply, reacting with "do this and that" basically trying to teach me how to do my work and telling me to spend even more time feels a bit like not hitting the point - the i386 issue is fixed, the ppc64le one is not (yet)
Wolfgang
Hello,
On 2022-12-22 11:47, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote (excerpts):
... I can only assume that upstream does not care much about some architectures.
...
Firefox releases are happening every 4-5 weeks and 90% are failing to build in less common architectures.
if I was a voluntary contributor I would follow upstream and abandon no longer upstream supported architectures.
If openSUSE users need something, they can of course ask for it (politely), but if noone of openSUSE wants to provide it on a voluntary base, they are left on their own.
If SUSE needs something (for paying SUSE customers), SUSE needs to pay for it and let a SUSE employee do it.
I think there is nothing bad or unfair with this. I think this is exactly right and fair.
I wish you and your families merry Christmas and a happy New Year!
Best Regards Johannes Meixner
On Thu, 2022-12-22 at 11:47 +0100, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
In any case:
- Dimstar's post here was a reaction on me excluding i386 from the build
to add to this: Wolfang, you do an awesome job in keeping FF (and TB) up-to-date. So the goal of this thread was certainly not to shame you for 'skipping' i586, but to actually give some others that care more about those extra architectures a hint that they can actually help (instead of only demand).
And I fully agree: telling you how to do things is defintively not the right approach. Submitting fixes would have been!
Cheers, Dominique
On 12/22/22 11:47, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
- while I see good intentions in the reply, reacting with "do this and that" basically trying to teach me how to do my work and telling me to spend even more time feels a bit like not hitting the point
Would you mind re-reading what I wrote? I didn't ask you to do anything, I merely pointed out that there seems to be already a solution to the FTBFS on i586 since the package builds there for other distributions.
I did neither try to teach how you how to maintain your package nor did it I tell you how to spend your time. I was making a suggestion. If you do not want to read suggestions from others, I would recommend not joining a mailing list.
Thanks, Adrian
Am 22.12.22 um 13:58 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
On 12/22/22 11:47, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
- while I see good intentions in the reply, reacting with "do this and
that" basically trying to teach me how to do my work and telling me to spend even more time feels a bit like not hitting the point
Would you mind re-reading what I wrote? I didn't ask you to do anything, I merely pointed out that there seems to be already a solution to the FTBFS on i586 since the package builds there for other distributions.
I did neither try to teach how you how to maintain your package nor did it I tell you how to spend your time. I was making a suggestion. If you do not want to read suggestions from others, I would recommend not joining a mailing list.
Thanks for your initial suggestions. Unfortunately they were not useful though.
Wolfgang
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 11:47, Wolfgang Rosenauer wolfgang@rosenauer.org wrote:
And yes, part of the problem is also that I'm constrained in time. Firefox releases are happening every 4-5 weeks and 90% are failing to build in less common architectures.
Just a passing thought:
How about only building and offering Firefox ESR on i586?
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022, 00:44:00 +0100, Liam Proven wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 11:47, Wolfgang Rosenauer wolfgang@rosenauer.org wrote:
And yes, part of the problem is also that I'm constrained in time. Firefox releases are happening every 4-5 weeks and 90% are failing to build in less common architectures.
Just a passing thought:
How about only building and offering Firefox ESR on i586?
Why? FWIW, the work on ESR is mostly done by me.
Cheers.
l8er manfred
Hello Manfred!
On 12/21/22 17:39, Manfred Hollstein wrote:
to be honest, that's not a fix! As Wolfgang pointed out, such failures should be identified and fixed during the release phase. Adding this as a patch after release doesn't smell too good to me...
FWIW, it would have been a good opportunity for him to add it to the 108.1 release...
Unless Mike steps up to fix the issue upstream, I can do it myself as I have a Mozilla account with Level 1 commit access. I have been wanting to fix the build on big-endian ppc64 for a while now, so I might as well fix the i386 build.
Adrian
Am 26.12.22 um 10:13 schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz:
Hello Manfred!
On 12/21/22 17:39, Manfred Hollstein wrote:
to be honest, that's not a fix! As Wolfgang pointed out, such failures should be identified and fixed during the release phase. Adding this as a patch after release doesn't smell too good to me...
FWIW, it would have been a good opportunity for him to add it to the 108.1 release...
Unless Mike steps up to fix the issue upstream, I can do it myself as I have a Mozilla account with Level 1 commit access. I have been wanting to fix the build on big-endian ppc64 for a while now, so I might as well fix the i386 build.
it is already fixed for FF 109 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1805809
Wolfgang
On 12/27/22 12:25, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:
Unless Mike steps up to fix the issue upstream, I can do it myself as I have a Mozilla account with Level 1 commit access. I have been wanting to fix the build on big-endian ppc64 for a while now, so I might as well fix the i386 build.
it is already fixed for FF 109 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1805809
OK, and Mike actually fixed it himself [1]. Don't understand why it wasn't approved for another 108.x release but I guess that's just the result of the short release cadence.
Adrian
[1] https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/autoland/rev/c7aa21aa29c9
On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 at 09:34, Manfred Hollstein mhollstein@t-online.de wrote:
How about only building and offering Firefox ESR on i586?
Why? FWIW, the work on ESR is mostly done by me.
I suggested it only because you said that the mainstream Firefox release cycle was so fast that it was causing a lot of work. I thought that maybe only offering ESR Firefox might reduce the workload.
For people who desperately want the very latest, there are external projects such as Librewolf which might help them.
It was only an idea.
-
Adrian Glaubitz -
Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar -
Johannes Meixner -
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
-
Liam Proven -
Manfred Hollstein -
Richard Brown -
Wolfgang Rosenauer