Re: [pcp] EL6 repo missing pcp-pmda-infiniband and bintray issues

[Trey Dockendorf <treydock@xxxxxxxx>]

Nathan,

Thanks for the response.

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi Trey,

----- Original Message -----
>
> Is it possible to get the pcp-pmda-infiniband package added to the bintray
> repo? I see there is a bintray-upload script in PCP source, but not yet
> clear to me if there already exists a mechanism in source to pre-install
> package dependencies for the builds.

I suspect it was an oversight on my part in setting up the build VM. There
is a qa/admin/check-vm script which verifies machine setup, so I'll get that
fixed up for the next release.

Thanks. Is the process used to build the PCP RPMs documented somewhere? I am building mine on VM using './Makepkgs --verbose'. I'd be happy to submit pull request if I'm able to test my changes using same steps that are used to build the official RPMs.

Â

> Also is it intentional that the perfevent package requires libpfm-devel? I
> noticed that in EL6 the papi package contains libpfm.so.3. Is the version is
> EL6 too low to support the perfevent PMDA?

Looking in build/rpm/pcp.spec.in theres a BuildRequires on libpfm-devel,
and a runtime Requires on libpfm4. Not sure if it works with libpfm.so.3 -
can you try it and let me know? (the configure.ac code just checks headers
so if those are present, maybe it will work with just a spec file tweak -
not sure).

When I run Makepkgs the configure output shows this:

checking for pfm_get_os_event_encoding in -lpfm... no

checking perfmon/pfmlib_perf_event.h usability... no

checking perfmon/pfmlib_perf_event.h presence... no

checking for perfmon/pfmlib_perf_event.h... no

checking if the perfevent PMDA should be included... no

The pfm_get_os_event_encoding symbol does not show up in EL6's libpfm.so, but I am seeing it in EL7's. So looks like EL6 libpfm is lacking needed symbols.

Â

> Lastly, I am having issues mirroring the bintray repo using Pulp. The issue
> may be a fault of bintray and not the PCP repo itself, but just in case
> something could be fixed I thought I'd mention the issue. I believe the
> issue comes down to repomd.xml for the repo not having a revision defined.

We use ./scripts/bintray-version to set the version info for all repos, so
its possible something is missing there. AFAICT from the bintray web UI all
version info does seem to be in place though.

It appears like the issue is lack of "<revision>" value. Looking at repo like EPEL I notice this "<revision>1451843961</revision>" while the bintray repo has "<revision />". My guess is the API calls to bintray trigger the repo creation in some non-standard way which is likely a bintray issue not specific to PCP.

Thanks,

- Trey

Â