Hi, On 24/11/16 11:03, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> henze is an armhf buildd that also builds armel, but antheil is an armel > buildd, > like abel, so that seems fine. weird :/ > However a recent build succeeded on henze[1]: Yes, but since many dependencies changed in the meantime, I did not think much of that build. > Those first few debug messages aren't the same in both runs. That "Maintenance > loop stopped" happens earlier in the failing run. No idea if that's > significant > as I haven't looked at the code, but you may want to investigate that. Also > since this is failing some times but has also passed, I would try to run this > in > a loop for a while in the porterbox. Might be a race condition. Indeed, it could be that. It would still be surprising that only fails on one arch and that I failed consistently to reproduce, but you never know.. I will try running it in a loop, and maybe with nice plus something else hogging the CPU > Cc'ing debian-arm@ and armel@, in case they have any other comments. Thanks a lot for the help! -- Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
