[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#36754: New linux-libre failed to build on armhf on Berlin

From: Mark H Weaver
Subject: bug#36754: New linux-libre failed to build on armhf on Berlin
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 13:13:11 -0400

Hi Ricardo,

Interesting.  I distinctly remember that there was no log file when I
looked last time.  Hmm.

Anyway, it seems that now, all of the failed builds have either build
logs available or else information about which dependency failed.  I
don't remember seeing any of this last time, but I'm glad to see it now.

A pattern has now emerged, but I don't know what it means.  All of the
armhf kernel builds failed except for linux-libre-arm-veyron-5.2.2,
which succeeded:

  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1488502/details  (arm-veyron-5.2.2)

Apart from this anomalous success, all of the armhf 5.2.2 and 4.19.60
have a truncated log file:

  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1488517/details  (5.2.2)
  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1488503/details  (4.19.60)
  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1488513/details  (arm-generic-5.2.2)
  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1488519/details  (arm-generic-4.19.60)
  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1488504/details  (arm-omap2plus-5.2.2)
  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1488501/details  (arm-omap2plus-4.19.60)

This pattern seems too regular to be a coincidence.  Can we find out
which build machines were used for these builds?

All of the 4.14.134 builds failed in the deblobbing step, due to timeout
(1 hour of silence) while packing the linux-libre tarball:

  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1488514/details  (4.14.134)
  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1488515/details  (arm-generic-4.14.134)
  https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1488512/details  (arm-omap2plus-4.14.134)

I'm not sure how to deal with this.  This is a computed origin, not a
normal package, and so I don't see a way to configure a longer timeout.

Perhaps I should make the tarball packing and unpacking operations
verbose, to work around the issue.  Of course that's our usual practice,
but I find it suboptimal because any warnings will be buried in a
mountain of uninteresting output.

Thoughts?  Anyway, thanks for looking into it.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]