On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:38:25AM +0500, Lev Lamberov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> recently I've discussed with upstream the build problems regarding the
> swi-prolog package on arm{el,hf} and mipsel [0], which are also
> highlighted in #887155 [1].
>
> We're wondering whether or not some of the tests are simply too
> demanding for the build machines that are probably configured with low
> resource limits. Do we have the ulimit settings (ulimit -a) of the build
> machines? This time it were henze both for arm{el,hf} and mipsel-aql-01
> for mipsel.
You've already added that to debian/rules, so that's in the build logs.
> On amd64 using /usr/bin/time -v, the max RSS is 170Mb. There will also
> be a quite high amount of reserved virtual memory, notably for the C
> stacks of the threads. We do not know the max number of threads, but
> assume about a dozen.
>
> Maybe it's better to blacklist swi-prolog for the weaker buildd
> candidates?
The weakest buildds have 4 GB RAM.
Some mips* buildds don't have an FPU, but all arm* ones have.
On armel/armhf all 6 buildds are exactly the same hardware.
A hard limit are 2 GB userspace address space on mips/mipsel
and 3 GB userspace address space on armel/armhf.
The build failed on armel/armhf but passed on mips,
that makes it less likely that it is just running
out of address space.
What strikes me is that 7.6.3+dfsg-1 built everywhere,[1]
but 4 weeks later 7.6.4+dfsg-1 had problems.
Porterbox abel is the same hardware as the armel/armhf buildds.
In the same armel unstable chroot on abel, 7.6.4+dfsg-1 did FTBFS
and 7.6.3+dfsg-1 did build successfully for me.
I suspect there is some (potentially bogus) change on 7.6.4
that triggers the problem, and it might be possible to bisect.
> Regards,
> Lev Lamberov
>...
cu
Adrian
[1] except s390x, but that failure looks unrelated
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
