Re: Input requested on proposed chnages for Delve compilation issues on ppc64le

On 29/08/25 01:38, tshah wrote:
> Hello While debugging the build failure on ppc64le, I found that the 
> main issue behind the build failure error was because of 2 seperate 
> calls to dh_autobuild in debian/rules of delve package. The first one 
> (generic was causing this issue because
> 
>
> Hello
> While debugging the build failure on ppc64le, I found that the main 
> issue behind the build failure error was because of 2 seperate calls 
> to dh_autobuild in debian/rules of delve package. The first one 
> (generic was causing this issue because of no tags been passed). As a 
> temporary workaround for testing, I commented that and the build was 
> able to move forward without the error.
>
> Proposed fix:
>
> I am thinking to add the build command based on the arch - condition 
> to avoid these errors in rules file.
>
Hello Debian team, please let me know your thoughts on this.
>
>
>
> But, further during the build, I got one another below error in 
> dh_auto_test,
>
> ok github.com/go-delve/delve/service/test    121.628s
> FAIL
> dh_auto_test: error: cd obj-powerpc64le-linux-gnu && go test -vet=off 
> -v -p 8 -tags exp.linuxppc64le,exp.linuxriscv64 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/cmd/dlv 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/cmd/dlv/cmds 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/cmd/dlv/cmds/helphelpers 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/astutil 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/config 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/dwarf 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/dwarf/dwarfbuilder 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/dwarf/frame 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/dwarf/godwarf 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/dwarf/leb128 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/dwarf/line 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/dwarf/loclist 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/dwarf/op 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/dwarf/reader 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/dwarf/regnum 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/elfwriter 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/gobuild 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/goversion 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/internal/gosym 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/locspec 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/logflags 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/amd64util 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/core 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/core/minidump 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/debuginfod 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/evalop 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/fbsdutil 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/gdbserial 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/internal/ebpf 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/linutil 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/macutil 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/native 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/test 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/winutil 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/terminal 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/terminal/colorize 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/terminal/starbind 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/version 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/service 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/service/api 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/service/dap 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/service/dap/daptest 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/service/debugger 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/service/internal/sameuser 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/service/rpc2 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/service/rpccommon 
> github.com/go-delve/delve/service/test returned exit code 1
> make[1]: *** [debian/rules:23: override_dh_auto_test] Error 25
> make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/debian/delve-test/delve-1.24.0'
> make: *** [debian/rules:9: binary] Error 2
> dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules binary subprocess returned exit 
> status 2
> debuild: fatal error at line 1185:
> dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc -ui -b failed
>
> I suspect it was because there were some tests which are just for 
> amd64 and it was failing due to a ppc64le arch. For that,  I have 
> created the below patch.
>
> --- delve-1.24.0.orig/pkg/proc/core/core_test.go
> +++ delve-1.24.0/pkg/proc/core/core_test.go
> @@ -249,6 +249,9 @@ func logRegisters(t *testing.T, regs pro
>  }
>
>  func TestCore(t *testing.T) {
> +    if runtime.GOARCH != "amd64" {
> +        t.Skip("TestCore only supported on amd64")
> +    }
>      if runtime.GOOS != "linux" || runtime.GOARCH == "386" {
>          t.Skip("unsupported")
>      }
> @@ -409,6 +412,9 @@ func TestCoreFpRegisters(t *testing.T) {
>  }
>
>  func TestCoreWithEmptyString(t *testing.T) {
> +    if runtime.GOARCH != "amd64" {
> +        t.Skip("TestCore only supported on amd64")
> +    }
>      if runtime.GOOS != "linux" || runtime.GOARCH == "386" {
>          t.Skip("unsupported")
>      }
>
This issue is fixed in version 1.25.2. So, The dh_auto_test  error will 
be fixed, once debian team upgrades to delve 1.25.2.
>
>
>
> Further, I got one more issue in the dh_auto_install stage because of 
> multiple package names within the same folder, so it throws this error.
>
> obj-powerpc64le-linux-gnu/src/github.com/go-delve/delve/service/debugger/debugger.go:31:2: 
> found packages native (dump_linux.go) and 
> your_linux_architecture_is_not_supported_by_delve 
> (support_sentinel_linux.go) in 
> /build/reproducible-path/delve-1.24.0/obj-powerpc64le-linux-gnu/src/github.com/go-delve/delve/pkg/proc/nativedh_golang: 
> error: go list -f '{{ range .Deps }}{{.}} {{ end }}' returned exit 
> code 1 make: *** [debian/rules:10: binary] Error 25 dpkg-buildpackage: 
> error: debian/rules binary subprocess returned exit status 2
>
> I tried to check and make some alterations in the 
> support_sentinel_linux.go file but no success. Its strange even though 
> it has proper conditions , this file is getting created. So, For that, 
> I have thought of a workaround to remove this file manually in 
> configure stage in rules file.
>
> override_dh_auto_configure:
>     if [ "$(DEB_HOST_ARCH)" = "ppc64el" ]; then \
>         rm -f pkg/proc/native/support_sentinel_linux.go ; \
>     fi
>     dh_auto_configure
>
This issue will be fixed once the PR 
<https://github.com/go-delve/delve/issues/4128> is merged. Thanks to 
Alessandro for helping me on this.
>
>
> Please let me know your reviews and thoughts on this.
>