Hi,
On 18/11/16 at 09:52 +0100, Lars Tangvald wrote:
> Could you try setting /proc/sys/fs/aio-max-nr in your build environment
> (64-core machine) to a high number like 40 (I'm guessing it's set to the
> default 65536), then building with my patch and see if that clears up
> everything?
Sorry
- lu...@debian.org wrote:
> On 14/11/16 at 02:47 -0800, Lars Tangvald wrote:
> >
> > - lu...@debian.org wrote:
> >
> > > On 13/11/16 at 22:59 -0800, Lars Tangvald wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - lu...@debian.org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Do you have the logs from the last run?
> > > > >
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:31:43PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 14/11/16 at 02:47 -0800, Lars Tangvald wrote:
> > I got it backwards, then :)
> > A high number of cores might cause this if fs.aio-max-nr is set low (cat
> > /proc/sys/fs/aio-max-nr | aio-nr), or rather, too low for the the
> >
On 14/11/16 at 02:47 -0800, Lars Tangvald wrote:
>
> - lu...@debian.org wrote:
>
> > On 13/11/16 at 22:59 -0800, Lars Tangvald wrote:
> > >
> > > - lu...@debian.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Do you have the logs from the last run?
> > > > > While we could disable the test that's failing, i
- lu...@debian.org wrote:
> On 13/11/16 at 22:59 -0800, Lars Tangvald wrote:
> >
> > - lu...@debian.org wrote:
> >
> > > > Do you have the logs from the last run?
> > > > While we could disable the test that's failing, it would be
> > > counterproductive since we can't reproduce the iss
On 13/11/16 at 22:59 -0800, Lars Tangvald wrote:
>
> - lu...@debian.org wrote:
>
> > > Do you have the logs from the last run?
> > > While we could disable the test that's failing, it would be
> > counterproductive since we can't reproduce the issue in any of our
> > normal build environments
- lu...@debian.org wrote:
> > Do you have the logs from the last run?
> > While we could disable the test that's failing, it would be
> counterproductive since we can't reproduce the issue in any of our
> normal build environments.
>
> This is the log without your patch applied
>
> Lucas
O
- lu...@debian.org wrote:
> > Do you have the logs from the last run?
> > While we could disable the test that's failing, it would be
> counterproductive since we can't reproduce the issue in any of our
> normal build environments.
>
> This is the log without your patch applied
>
> Lucas
An
Forgot the bug
--
Lars--- Begin Message ---
- lu...@debian.org wrote:
> On 09/11/16 at 07:27 -0800, Lars Tangvald wrote:
> >
> > - lu...@debian.org wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I don't think that my test is run as root. So it might be
> something
> > > else...
> > >
> > >
On 09/11/16 at 07:27 -0800, Lars Tangvald wrote:
>
> - lu...@debian.org wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't think that my test is run as root. So it might be something
> > else...
> >
> > Lucas
>
> The error message is access denied for 'root'@'localhost', but the test
> itself tries t
- lu...@debian.org wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I don't think that my test is run as root. So it might be something
> else...
>
> Lucas
The error message is access denied for 'root'@'localhost', but the test itself
tries to log in as the current system user (it's supposed to be blank, but
that's
Hi,
On 09/11/16 at 13:59 +0100, Lars Tangvald wrote:
>
>
> On 11/09/2016 10:11 AM, Lars Tangvald wrote:
> > Forgot to add in the bug.
> >
> > On 11/09/2016 10:01 AM, Lars Tangvald wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 11/09/2016 08:59 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > > On 09/11/16 at 08:17 +0100, Lars T
On 11/09/2016 10:11 AM, Lars Tangvald wrote:
Forgot to add in the bug.
On 11/09/2016 10:01 AM, Lars Tangvald wrote:
On 11/09/2016 08:59 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 09/11/16 at 08:17 +0100, Lars Tangvald wrote:
On 11/07/2016 03:43 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
I don't think it's rando
Hi,
On 07/11/16 at 12:39 +0100, Lars Tangvald wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I can't reproduce this failure, with 5.7.15 or the 5.7.16 we've prepared for
> #841163
> I think maybe this is an unstable test, in which case we can disable it
> until it's resolved upstream.
> Could you retry the build and see if it
Hi,
I can't reproduce this failure, with 5.7.15 or the 5.7.16 we've prepared
for #841163
I think maybe this is an unstable test, in which case we can disable it
until it's resolved upstream.
Could you retry the build and see if it happens again?
--
Lars
Source: mysql-5.7
Version: 5.7.15-1
Severity: serious
Tags: stretch sid
User: debian...@lists.debian.org
Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20161021 qa-ftbfs
Justification: FTBFS on amd64
Hi,
During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build on
amd64.
Relevant part (hopefully):
>
> Check of
16 matches
Mail list logo
