On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 04:29:18PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>>> "tony" == tony mancill <tmanc...@debian.org> writes:
>
> tony> Hi Paul,
>
> tony> I emailed ar...@buildd.debian.org regarding that this morning
> tony> (at 13:35 UTC), but haven't received a response yet. Perhaps
> tony> related, but the first arm64 build failed for the upload to
> tony> unstable last week. The build failed on arm-ubc-02 but then
> tony> succeeded on arm-conova-02. I don't know if someone manually
> tony> triggered the retry, but a few hours after the arm64 failure,
> tony> another build was underway and successful.
>
>Happened to be in the room with SteMcIntyre, who is not actually an
>arm64 buildd admin, but who volunteered to prod people.
>He also suggested that you could copy the debian-arm list as well as
>buildd admins.
Hey Tony,
Looking at that log now...
The build is running and failing on arm-ubc-03, which is one of the
new buildds at UBC that have just been recently commissioned. It's odd
that there's no explicit failure message for the build, just a build
timeout.
I know there have been disk issues reported on one of the new machines
(yay!), possibly that's the cause here. I don't have direct login
access myself to be able to check. Aurelien - could you take a look
please?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com
< Aardvark> I dislike C++ to start with. C++11 just seems to be
handing rope-creating factories for users to hang multiple
instances of themselves.
