#12201 i686 builds randomly failing due to not finding /usr/bin/ld
Closed: Fixed with Explanation 19 days ago by kevin. Opened 2 months ago by decathorpe.

  • Describe the issue

I don't know what is happening or why. But for a few days, i686 builds have been randomly failing linker issues due to /usr/bin/ld not being found by compilers.

For example:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=120389816

This is apparently happening on both rawhide and f40 and possibly other branches too.

It does not seem to be a persistent issue with buildroots, since resubmitted builds usually succeed.

  • When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)

Would be great to get fixed before the mass rebuild. Otherwise there might be a high number of random failures.

  • When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)

N/A

  • If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?

Random build failures on i686 continue until morale improves.


All the failures I found seemed to be on buildhw-x64-12, so I disabled that builder...

but looking in the failed chroots, it looks like there's no ld link, which should be made by alternatives. :( I do see ld.bfd there installed just fine.

So, could this be some sbin move/alternatives race? Or something else.... not sure.

So, have you (or anyone else) seen this since I disabled that builder?

Metadata Update from @phsmoura:
- Issue tagged with: low-gain, low-trouble, ops

2 months ago

I haven't seen it, but I haven't done any koji builds in the last two days, so it's not really a good sample :(

In the past, this was a side effect of update-alternatives experiencing breakage due to 64-bit inode numbers. It's just the first issue that breaks. I don't it's a good use of our time to fix chkconfig because lots of other things will be broken by this, too.

If the builder uses btrfs, you need to recreate the file system. If it's XFS, there's a mount option (inode32, recommended for 32-bit chroots only). I don't think ext4 has this problem.

Yeah, I remember that issue, but this machine wasn't installed longer ago than any others I don't think. ;(

Is there some way to see if it's actually affected by that? It is btrfs... I can definitely just reinstall it, but would be good to confirm thats what was going on...

@kevin Just create a file in the relevant file system and obtain its inode number:

$ touch file
$ ls -i file
327287527 file

In my case, it's at about 15% utilization.

Ah ha. Right, that makes sense. Thanks.

This was indeed that issue and I long since fixed that builder. Will keep a eye out for any getting near.

Metadata Update from @kevin:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed with Explanation
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

19 days ago

Log in to comment on this ticket.

Metadata
Boards 1
Ops Status: Backlog