Bug 1482066 - rust-toolset-7-rhel7 image contains DTS4 packages
Summary: rust-toolset-7-rhel7 image contains DTS4 packages
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: DevTools
Classification: Red Hat
Component: rust-toolset-7-container
Version: rust-toolset-7
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: rc
: 2.1
Assignee: Josh Stone
QA Contact: Miloš Prchlík
Vladimír Slávik
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-08-16 11:56 UTC by Miloš Prchlík
Modified: 2017-10-24 08:39 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-10-24 08:39:57 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHEA-2017:3035 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE new container image: devtools/rust-toolset-7-rhel7 2017-10-24 12:51:13 UTC

Description Miloš Prchlík 2017-08-16 11:56:10 UTC
Description of problem:

[remote:10]: mprchlik@dhcp-1-137 [master] ~/git/tests/rust/Sanity/basic-smoke $ docker run -it --rm rhscl-tech-preview/rust-toolset-7-rhel7 /bin/bash
bash-4.2$ rpm -qa | grep devtoolset-
devtoolset-4-gcc-5.2.1-2.2.el7.x86_64
devtoolset-4-runtime-4.0-9.el7.x86_64
bash-4.2$ 

I'd expect DTS-7 gcc & runtime. I suppose this could happen if the image has been built with wrong repositories enabled.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

rhscl-tech-preview/rust-toolset-7-rhel7 871a5b58059e


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Josh Stone 2017-08-17 22:36:39 UTC
See bug 1482062 comment 1 -- I wasn't expecting to get a DTS gcc at all.

Comment 3 Martin Cermak 2017-08-18 15:01:59 UTC
Radku, similar to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482062.  The image gets built with wrong buildroot, or whatever is the right term for the yum repositories available during the image build.

Comment 4 Josh Stone 2017-08-18 16:58:42 UTC
The log shows that it is installing some stuff from rhel-7-server-rpms, but I don't know why yum isn't picking gcc from there.

Comment 5 Radek Zima 2017-08-21 07:32:12 UTC
Martin, Josh, these packages are in container because devtoolset-7-dwz.x86_64 requires libelf.so.1()(64bit)) which is provided by devtoolset-3. Therefore devtoolset-3 was pulled into beta compose and from there it was taken for docker image. We have to fix devtoolset-7-dwz and then we will need new Beta compose. See below for more details.

Pungi:INFO: Added devtoolset-3-elfutils-libelf.x86_64 (repo: pungi-repo) for devtoolset-7-dwz.x86_64 (Requires: libelf.so.1()(64bit))

rpm -qp --provides devtoolset-3-elfutils-libelf-0.161-1.el7.x86_64.rpm 
devtoolset-3-elfutils-libelf = 0.161-1.el7
devtoolset-3-elfutils-libelf(x86-64) = 0.161-1.el7
libelf.so.1()(64bit)  
libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit)  
libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.1)(64bit)  
libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.1.1)(64bit)  
libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.2)(64bit)  
libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.3)(64bit)  
libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.4)(64bit)  
libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.5)(64bit)  
libelf.so.1(ELFUTILS_1.6)(64bit)  
scl-package(devtoolset-3)

rpm -qp --provides devtoolset-7-elfutils-libelf-0.170-1.el7.x86_64.rpm
devtoolset-7-elfutils-libelf = 0.170-1.el7
devtoolset-7-elfutils-libelf(x86-64) = 0.170-1.el7
libelf.so.dts.1()(64bit)  
libelf.so.dts.1(ELFUTILS_1.0)(64bit)  
libelf.so.dts.1(ELFUTILS_1.1)(64bit)  
libelf.so.dts.1(ELFUTILS_1.1.1)(64bit)  
libelf.so.dts.1(ELFUTILS_1.2)(64bit)  
libelf.so.dts.1(ELFUTILS_1.3)(64bit)  
libelf.so.dts.1(ELFUTILS_1.4)(64bit)  
libelf.so.dts.1(ELFUTILS_1.5)(64bit)  
libelf.so.dts.1(ELFUTILS_1.6)(64bit)  
libelf.so.dts.1(ELFUTILS_1.7)(64bit)  
scl-package(devtoolset-7)

Comment 6 Martin Cermak 2017-08-21 12:07:57 UTC
Hmm, truth is that devtoolset-7-elfutils-libelf provides /opt/rh/devtoolset-7/root/usr/lib64/libelf.so.dts.1 with soname 'libelf.so.dts.1'.  This was intentionally changed per bz1412305 within the dts-6.1 erratum RHBA-2017:1149.

But devtoolset-7-dwz should be happy with the base rhel elfutils-libelf, like it did on my rhel-7.4 test box:

=======
 7.4 Server x86_64 # rpm -qf /opt/rh/devtoolset-7/root/usr/bin/dwz
devtoolset-7-dwz-0.12-1.el7.x86_64
 7.4 Server x86_64 # ldd /opt/rh/devtoolset-7/root/usr/bin/dwz
        linux-vdso.so.1 =>  (0x00007fff435ee000)
        libelf.so.1 => /lib64/libelf.so.1 (0x00007fb0fe557000)
        libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007fb0fe194000)
        libz.so.1 => /lib64/libz.so.1 (0x00007fb0fdf7d000)
        /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x000055b3b0b59000)
 7.4 Server x86_64 # rpm -qf /lib64/libelf.so.1
elfutils-libelf-0.168-8.el7.x86_64
 7.4 Server x86_64 # 
=======

But interesting is that devtoolset-3 was pulled into play in instead of devtoolset-4 which provides newer libelf.so.1:

=======
 7.4 Server x86_64 # eu-readelf --dynamic --notes /opt/rh/devtoolset-4/root/usr/lib64/libelf.so.1 | grep SONAME
  SONAME            Library soname: [libelf.so.1]
 7.4 Server x86_64 # 
 7.4 Server x86_64 # 
 7.4 Server x86_64 # rpm -qf /opt/rh/devtoolset-4/root/usr/lib64/libelf.so.1
devtoolset-4-elfutils-libelf-0.166-1.el7.x86_64
 7.4 Server x86_64 # eu-readelf --dynamic --notes /opt/rh/devtoolset-4/root/usr/lib64/libelf.so.1 | grep SONAME
  SONAME            Library soname: [libelf.so.1]
 7.4 Server x86_64 #
=======

Comment 7 Radek Zima 2017-08-21 12:31:11 UTC
That's true, in that case we need to look at lookaside repos during composes creation. I will try to investigate more.

Comment 8 Radek Zima 2017-08-21 13:14:22 UTC
fixed on composes side but we will need beta respin

Comment 9 Josh Stone 2017-08-21 20:53:39 UTC
For this purpose, I don't really want to get any devtoolset-*-gcc at all, but just the base OS gcc.  Will that really be solved now?

Comment 11 Radek Zima 2017-08-23 07:27:42 UTC
from log is visible that wrong devtoolset package was taken from beta compose. There is not new beta compose yet, so it is fixed in configuration but we need prepare new compose.

Right now I'm collecting other issues for new beta compose.

Comment 16 errata-xmlrpc 2017-10-24 08:39:57 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2017:3035


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.