Your message dated Sun, 23 Oct 2011 15:09:54 -0500
with message-id <20132.29842.516384.542...@max.nulle.part>
and subject line Re: Bug#636962: foptions: FTBFS: xvfb-run: error: Xvfb failed
to start
has caused the Debian Bug report #636962,
regarding foptions: FTBFS: xvfb-run: error: Xvfb failed to start
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
636962: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=636962
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: foptions
Version: 2140.79-1
Severity: serious
Hi,
Your package failed to build with the following error:
if test -f /usr/bin/xvfb-run; then \
xvfb-run \
R CMD INSTALL -l
/build/buildd-foptions_2140.79-1-amd64-aLb1oa/foptions-2140.79/debian/r-cran-foptions/usr/lib/R/site-library
--clean \
. ; \
else \
R CMD INSTALL -l
/build/buildd-foptions_2140.79-1-amd64-aLb1oa/foptions-2140.79/debian/r-cran-foptions/usr/lib/R/site-library
\
--clean . ;\
fi
xvfb-run: error: Xvfb failed to start
Kurt
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 7 August 2011 at 12:55, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| On 7 August 2011 at 18:54, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
| | On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 11:10:46AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| | >
| | > On 7 August 2011 at 17:43, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
| | > | On Sun, Aug 07, 2011 at 10:23:09AM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| | > | >
| | > | > On 7 August 2011 at 15:30, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
| | > | > | Source: foptions
| | > | > | Version: 2140.79-1
| | > | > | Severity: serious
| | > | [...]
| | > | > | xvfb-run: error: Xvfb failed to start
| | > | > |
| | > | >
| | > | > That is a random error in the build infrastructure I can do nothing
about. It
| | > | > seems to happen one every couple dozen builds.
| | > |
| | > | It failed like that one of few one the buildds, that's not one
| | > | every dozen.
| | > |
| | > | So it seems to be random behaviour, but easy to reproduce. In
| | > | that case it really shouldn't be that hard to find out what the
| | > | difference between working and failing is.
| | > |
| | > | Could you please try to find out in which package the bug is? I
| | > | doubt you're the only one using xvfb to build something, so I
| | > | would expect to see more packages failing like that if it was a
| | > | bug in xvfb.
| | >
| | > Kurt, I have been maintaining _several dozen_ of these r-cran-* packages
for
| | > a half decade or longer. Some of these happen to need an X11 display on
| | > startup, so we need xvfb-run.
| | >
| | > But _not one_ has ever failed xvfb in my pbuilder. So there is no
| | > reproduceability at my end.
| |
| | Ok, that's annoying.
| |
| | > And if you look at the buildd stats that are logged you see that the
| | > autobuilds do succeed most of the time. I really do not know what kills
some
| | > of them some of the time. But it is random, and I just don't have any
| | > operational hypothesis.
| | >
| | > I'd love to help, I just have nothing to go by.
| | >
| | > Any ideas?
| |
| | Not really.
| |
| | They now all failed with an other error instead:
| | ** preparing package for lazy loading
| | Loading required package: MASS
| |
| | Attaching package: 'fBasics'
| |
| | The following object(s) are masked from 'package:base':
| |
| | norm
| |
| | ** help
| | *** installing help indices
| | ** building package indices ...
| | ** testing if installed package can be loaded
| |
| | * DONE (fOptions)
| | kill: 186: No such process
| |
| | make: *** [R_any_arch] Error 1
|
| I think the 'kill: 186: No such process' may have been new when me made this
| one change in R itself (as the r-cran.mk snippet in every debian/rules is
| supplied from the basic R package):
|
| r-base (2.13.0-4) unstable; urgency=low
|
| * debian/r-cran.mk: Make call to xvfb-run more robust by adding '-a'
| option to allow automatic switching to free virtual server; with thanks
| to Salvatore Bonaccorso for the suggestions (Closes:
#630869)
|
| -- Dirk Eddelbuettel <e...@debian.org> Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:59:55 -0500
|
|
| It was failing before too; and other teams seem to be using 'xvfb-run -a' so
| I adopted this on Salvatore's suggestion.
|
| I could revert, but maybe we'd just die with a different error message :-/
|
| Dirk
A standard rebuild of the package fixed this (random) issue. It is a
flakyness in the build infrastructure will hit us again someday, somewhere.
But r-cran-foptions is good now.
Dirk
--
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too
dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
--- End Message ---
