On 15/09/16 at 19:39 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> This package is still a headache for my autobuilder.
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2016, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Indeed it was the equivalent of dpkg-buildpackage -A that
> > triggered it.
> Do you mean you could always reproduce with "dpkg-buildpackage -A"
> and never with "dpkg-buildpackage"?
> Later you said:
> > [ sysctl tunings ]
> > It seems that one of those caused that failure, because, now that I have
> > them disabled, it does not fail anymore.
> Are you sure that removing those settings is the real reason it stopped
> failing for you? (Would you try a few more times?)
> It still fails for me, randomly, and I'm not using EC2 but KVM on my
> own server and KVM on a commercial provider, so my alternate theory is
> that it was random before you dropped the settings, and it continues
> to be random after dropping the settings.
> This is my historic data:
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.2_amd64-20151025T1748Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.2_amd64-20151201T1848Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.2_amd64-20151220T1430Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.2_amd64-20160101T2221Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.2_amd64-20160507T1523Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.2_amd64-20160507T1649Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T055103Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T150752Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T151026Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T151114Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T161241Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T151357Z
> Status: successful google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T161322Z
> Status: successful google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T161612Z
> Status: successful google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T161656Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T161654Z
> Status: failed google-perftools_2.2.1-0.3_amd64-20160914T161043Z
> Version 2.2.1-0.3 is the first one that does not *always* fail for me.
> This is a great achievement indeed.
> Now it builds sometimes, but 3/11 is not a very good ratio.
I'm not sure, no. It's indeed possible that it's still failing randomly.