Web lists-archives.com

Re: Help requested: Packages which FTBFS randomly




On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 23:36 +0100, Christoph Biedl wrote:
> Niels Thykier wrote...
> 
> [ topic shift ]
> 
> > On a related note: Having some way to declare minimum requirements for
> > e.g. disk space and memory (a la "base GB usage + GB usage/core") used
> > would be great.
> >   Especially if it is available in metadata, so wanna-build can see
> > whether it makes sense to assign a given package to a given build-node.
> 
> This is a charming idea altough I have doubt it will work out: As
> usual the information has to be kept up-to-date, so unless it is
> collected and verified every now and then automatically, it will
> become unsuable pretty soon.
> 
> Otherwise, there are more things I could use in such a buildd routing
> table: I remember I've seen packages failing to build
> 
> * when using eatmydata

I can certainly think of a test case that would be broken by eatmydata
and I would not want to rule out such test cases.  But still, I am
suprised by this.

> * on sbuild using overlayfs

overlayfs is sadly quite a way from being a POSIX-compliant filesystem.
 So it seems unreasonable to expect every package to be buildable in
such a build environment.

> * using a qemu build chroot (Debian doesn't do this, other might)

Is that because QEMU is slow, or some other reason?

> * with /tmp on tmpfs on some archs
[...]

You mean the 64-bit PowerPC architectures?  tmpfs allocates at least a
page per file, and they have 64K pages...

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
73.46% of all statistics are made up.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part