Linuxbrew-core: openssl on arm64 fails to build after mis-recognizing the architecture

Created on 25 Jan 2019 · 17Comments · Source: Homebrew/linuxbrew-core

Please note we will close your issue without comment if you delete, do not read or do not fill out the issue checklist below and provide ALL the requested information. If you repeatedly fail to use the issue template, we will block you from ever submitting issues to Homebrew again.

[x] have a problem with brew install (or upgrade, reinstall) a single formula? If it's a general brew problem please file this issue at Linuxbrew/brew: https://github.com/Linuxbrew/brew/issues/new/choose. If it's a tap (e.g. Brewsci/homebrew-bio) problem please file this issue at the tap.
[x] ran brew update and can still reproduce the problem?
[ ] ran brew doctor, fixed all issues and can still reproduce the problem?
[ ] ran brew gist-logs <formula> (where <formula> is the name of the formula that failed) and included the output link?
[x] if brew gist-logs didn't work: ran brew config and brew doctor and included their output with your issue?

emv@dfw-xda:~$ brew config
HOMEBREW_VERSION: 1.9.3-10-g40bfc39
ORIGIN: https://github.com/Homebrew/brew
HEAD: 40bfc39912f9abe5acea4e1950bc1951bccc380e
Last commit: 23 hours ago
Core tap ORIGIN: https://github.com/Linuxbrew/homebrew-core
Core tap HEAD: c64c242ba62a242c808f98bdf0643b603555c8f9
Core tap last commit: 13 hours ago
HOMEBREW_PREFIX: /home/emv/.linuxbrew
HOMEBREW_REPOSITORY: /home/emv/.linuxbrew/Homebrew
HOMEBREW_CELLAR: /home/emv/.linuxbrew/Cellar
HOMEBREW_CACHE: /home/emv/.cache/Homebrew
HOMEBREW_LOGS: /home/emv/.cache/Homebrew/Logs
HOMEBREW_NO_ANALYTICS_THIS_RUN: 1
Homebrew Ruby: 2.5.1 => /usr/bin/ruby2.5
Clang: N/A
Git: 2.17.1 => /usr/bin/git
Curl: 7.58.0 => /usr/bin/curl
Kernel: Linux 4.15.0-34-generic aarch64 GNU/Linux
OS: Ubuntu 18.04.1 LTS (bionic)
Host glibc: 2.27
/usr/bin/gcc: 7.3.0
glibc: N/A
gcc: N/A
xorg: N/A

Please note that these warnings are just used to help the Homebrew maintainers
with debugging if you file an issue. If everything you use Homebrew for is
working fine: please don't worry or file an issue; just ignore this. Thanks!

Warning: Your Homebrew's prefix is not /home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew.
Some of Homebrew's bottles (binary packages) can only be used with the default
prefix (/home/linuxbrew/.linuxbrew).
You will encounter build failures with some formulae.
Please create pull requests instead of asking for help on Homebrew's GitHub,
Discourse, Twitter or IRC. You are responsible for resolving any issues you
experience, as you are running this unsupported configuration.

To help us debug your issue please explain:

What you were trying to do (and why)

build openssl on arm64.

What happened (include command output)

==> make
Last 15 lines from /home/emv/.cache/Homebrew/Logs/openssl/03.make:
x86_64cpuid.s:251: Error: unknown mnemonic `movl' -- `movl $8,%ecx'
x86_64cpuid.s:254: Error: unknown mnemonic `jc' -- `jc .Lbreak_rdrand'
x86_64cpuid.s:255: Error: unknown mnemonic `loop' -- `loop .Loop_rdrand'
x86_64cpuid.s:257: Error: unknown mnemonic `cmpq' -- `cmpq $0,%rax'
x86_64cpuid.s:258: Error: unknown mnemonic `cmoveq' -- `cmoveq %rcx,%rax'
x86_64cpuid.s:266: Error: unknown mnemonic `movl' -- `movl $8,%ecx'
x86_64cpuid.s:269: Error: unknown mnemonic `jc' -- `jc .Lbreak_rdseed'
x86_64cpuid.s:270: Error: unknown mnemonic `loop' -- `loop .Loop_rdseed'
x86_64cpuid.s:272: Error: unknown mnemonic `cmpq' -- `cmpq $0,%rax'
x86_64cpuid.s:273: Error: unknown mnemonic `cmoveq' -- `cmoveq %rcx,%rax'
<builtin>: recipe for target 'x86_64cpuid.o' failed
make[1]: *** [x86_64cpuid.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/openssl-20190125-14233-1i8nmlo/openssl-1.0.2q/crypto'
Makefile:287: recipe for target 'build_crypto' failed

What you expected to happen

build succeeded

Step-by-step reproduction instructions (by running brew install commands)

brew install openssl

note: at https://github.com/Linuxbrew/homebrew-core/blob/631ec00bc4a4772d38c9077bed42afee69cd12c8/Formula/openssl.rb#L39-L48 the arch_args formula never selects arm64 or aarch64 as the correct architecture.

outdated question

Source

vielmetti

All 17 comments

Looking at #11066 I'll flag @iMichka here - I am not quite familiar enough to submit a patch myself, though it should be something fairly straightforward.

vielmetti on 25 Jan 2019

Hi. What happened is the following: upstream dropped support for 32 bit, and cleaned up some flags. The merged from homebrew-core to this repository was quite a mess. So now the formula only has flags for x86_64.
We need to add flags back for the other archs on Linux.

Please note that arm is somewhat supported here, but only on a case by case basis. I do not have the resources (e.g. much time) to work on fixes for these. But pull requests are welcome.

iMichka on 27 Jan 2019

Gotcha! I'm particularly interested in arm64 (64-bit) and would be happy to also provide hardware and support for same through @worksonarm . Mostly I'm interested in recruiting someone to the project who does have the time and the specific interest in arm64 to be point on this.

vielmetti on 27 Jan 2019

We have 2 strategies here:

either the patches go in this repo
either you fork this repo and manage the patches there (under an ARMBrew org or something equivalent).

The second option has the advantage that you could plan on having bottles (precompiled binaries), and I think it is the one I prefer. I would like to see a proof of concept with the main 100 to 200 formulae working before considering adding anything here. We are already struggling to keep the amd64 stuff up and running. @sjackman may have some thoughts on that too.

I am willing to add some smaller patches in this repo to get you going if you want, but it should stay a limited amount for the time being.

iMichka on 27 Jan 2019

My preference is for the ARM64 support to go in this repo, particularly if Edward (@vielmetti) recruits someone to maintain that work. I don't want that maintenance burden to fall on your shoulders, Michka. My guess/hope is that relatively few formulae should requiring patching specifically for ARM. Edward, do you have someone in mind to maintain ARM64 for Linuxbrew/core?

sjackman on 28 Jan 2019

I am ok for patches. It is more about the CI. We need a rock-solid CI for ARM if we want to build bottles. Our current CI setup needs a lot of manual intervention and rebuilds/reuploads, which makes it hard to use. I do not want to have 2 CIs to babysit :)

iMichka on 28 Jan 2019

I do not want to have 2 CIs to babysit :)

They're way worse than toddlers. 👶

@vielmetti Would you like to run CI (automated testing) for ARM64?
Would you like to build precompiled binary packages (called bottles) for ARM64?

sjackman on 28 Jan 2019

I'm thinking CI and bottles for ARM64 could be future aims for Linuxbrew on ARM64, and for now we merge the ARM64 patches that are needed directly into Linuxbrew/core.

sjackman on 28 Jan 2019

So perhaps several separate issues.

I think the arm64-related patches here are going to be small, at least the first go around. Before I say that, though, I'm going to make a run through trying to build everything. I have a fast parallel multicore machine to do that on, but I haven't figured out yet how to use all the cores at once, since brew complains if you build one thing while another thing is being built.

My goal with an initial build world is to get a baseline. How many things work and how many don't? What if any packages install x86 binaries so that they look like they work but really don't? Are there common dependencies to tackle first (and I'm pretty sure openssl is very high on that list)?

I'd like to eventually do CI, and for that I'd propose to use Drone Cloud (@drone), which runs here on Packet equipment and supports all of x86, 32-bit Arm, and arm64. But that could be a future aim, since it's likely to involve a bit of setup work. It would also be great to have bottles, but again, that can be a future target.

vielmetti on 28 Jan 2019

@sjackman I do have someone I'm thinking of, yes - they are not under contract to do this work, though, so I'll hold off on committing them to it until I do some research first to assess the scope of work.

vielmetti on 28 Jan 2019

OK, my build world step is cranking away, one package at a time.

It looks so far like openssl, go, and libpng have multiple attempts to build and resulting failures.

13 packages have the message configure: error: cannot guess build type; you must specify one or a variant.

vielmetti on 28 Jan 2019

I would recommend to focus on packages that already have a Linux bottle. There are around 1900 packages with bottles, out of 4000 to 5000 formulae. I do not guarantee that all the 1900 are building fine, but at least we worked at least once on them and there was at least one successful build for them.

I can provide you the top 200 formulae with the most installs. I think it would be good to start with these, to get a good basis to build on. I can export that data later when I am back from work.

iMichka on 28 Jan 2019

👀1 👍1

Before I say that, though, I'm going to make a run through trying to build everything.

😮

I have a fast parallel multicore machine to do that on, but I haven't figured out yet how to use all the cores at once, since brew complains if you build one thing while another thing is being built.

Most formulae use make -j by default (unless it's disabled due to known failures), so building one formula at a time is fine.

I agree with Michka, building formulae in order of popularity and formulae with x86_64 bottles is a good start. See https://brew.sh/analytics/install-on-request/

sjackman on 28 Jan 2019

Here is the list with the nbr of installs for the top 200, since November 1, 2018:

iMichka on 28 Jan 2019

As this is more a question/request than a real issue, I propose that any discussion should continue on https://discourse.brew.sh/c/linuxbrew.

I'm closing this issue as there is not action to be taken on our side for the time being.

iMichka on 28 Jan 2019

@vielmetti You can also open a PR to address this build failure, and we can resume the discussion there.

sjackman on 28 Jan 2019

https://discourse.brew.sh/t/linuxbrew-port-to-arm64-some-test-results/3991 - opened up a new discussion there.

vielmetti on 28 Jan 2019

👍1

Was this page helpful?

0 / 5 - 0 ratings

Related issues

Installing bottled apps written in Rust like lsd or fd fails since patchelf 0.12

tkaehn · 5Comments

`lsof` 4.93.2 fails to install with `Errno::ENOENT: No such file or directory - lsof.8`

estraph · 7Comments

node: always fails to install on Ubuntu 16.04

julian45 · 7Comments

binutils bottle broken on Centos6 without glibc

ndevenish · 4Comments

rubberband: "ladspa.h: No such file or directory"

slhck · 7Comments