Stefan Sobernig writes:
> I would still appreciate it if you could test on abel.
I did just now, and had a successful build there too. I wonder what
went wrong originally.
Anyway, thanks again!
--
Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org)
http://www.mit.edu/~amu/ | http
Thx for this help! Did you test on the very same buildd/porterbox
which reports the issue: hasse.debian.org; or any other armhf/mipsel
box?
I don't have access to the autobuilders, on which logins are restricted
to their actual maintainers. Rather, my test builds were on
harris.debian.org (armh
Thx for this help! Did you test on the very same buildd/porterbox
which reports the issue: hasse.debian.org; or any other armhf/mipsel
box?
I don't have access to the autobuilders, on which logins are restricted
to their actual maintainers. Rather, my test builds were on
harris.debian.org (armh
[Dropping pkg-tcltk, which bounces without -devel.]
Stefan Sobernig writes:
> Thx for this help! Did you test on the very same buildd/porterbox
> which reports the issue: hasse.debian.org; or any other armhf/mipsel
> box?
I don't have access to the autobuilders, on which logins are restricted
t
Hi Aaron!
How can I best simulate the environment at the buildd box? Is there a
chance to obtain a core dump from the buildd box, alternatively?
I'm not aware of a way to get core dumps off of autobuilders, though
perhaps if you asked their maintainers nicely, they might be able to
help you ou
Stefan Sobernig writes:
> How can I best simulate the environment at the buildd box? Is there a
> chance to obtain a core dump from the buildd box, alternatively?
I'm not aware of a way to get core dumps off of autobuilders, though
perhaps if you asked their maintainers nicely, they might be abl
> Builds of nsf on Linux architectures failed with test suite errors, of
> two types. (There was also a kFreeBSD failure, which I'll report
> separately.)
>
> On armhf and mipsel, the linearization test segfaults when done:
We will certainly look at these a.s.a.p.
I tried to reproduce the
Stefan Sobernig writes:
> says one should not rely on any network (interface) being available,
> so (conditionally) disabling those tests is the way to go?
Yes, I reckon so. Thanks for looking into it!
Incidentally, I should clarify that I don't manage any autobuilders
myself, just keep an eye
> On the remaining Linux architectures, the http test times out, perhaps
> due to idiosyncracies of buildd network configuration:
> !!!::req1 (2): Connection refused by host 'localhost' port '8086'
> error flushing "sock949f8a8": socket is not connected!!!
> xocomm/test.001: incorrect result
Hi Aaron!
Thx for reporting, I had already noticed the failing builds.
> Builds of nsf on Linux architectures failed with test suite errors, of
> two types. (There was also a kFreeBSD failure, which I'll report
> separately.)
>
> On armhf and mipsel, the linearization test segfaults when done:
"Aaron M. Ucko" writes:
> (There was also a kFreeBSD failure, which I'll report separately.)
Never mind; a closer look at the build log reveals that configuration on
kfreebsd-amd64 failed for the simple reason that the autobuilder simply
didn't have enough disk space, which indicates nothing one
Source: nsf
Version: 2.0.0-1
Severity: serious
Justification: fails to build from source
Builds of nsf on Linux architectures failed with test suite errors, of
two types. (There was also a kFreeBSD failure, which I'll report
separately.)
On armhf and mipsel, the linearization test segfaults when
12 matches
Mail list logo
