(mav@, powerpc@, stable@, SuperBisquit BCCed) On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Jeremy Chadwick <free...@jdc.parodius.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:31:15PM -0500, Super Bisquit wrote: >> I still say that the system should be built natively on powerpc equipment. > > What relevancy does that have to the situation? We're seeing the same > for other architectures, not just powerpc. > > 4516 01/02 21:53 FreeBSD Tinderbox (3.9K) [releng_9 tinderbox] failure > on i386/i386 > 4517 01/02 22:07 FreeBSD Tinderbox (3.9K) [releng_9 tinderbox] failure > on ia64/ia64 > 4518 01/02 22:46 FreeBSD Tinderbox (3.9K) [releng_9 tinderbox] failure > on i386/pc98 > 4519 01/03 00:11 FreeBSD Tinderbox (3.9K) [releng_9 tinderbox] failure > on sparc64/sparc64 > 4520 01/03 00:15 FreeBSD Tinderbox (3.9K) [releng_9 tinderbox] failure > on powerpc/powerpc > 4522 01/03 00:57 FreeBSD Tinderbox (3.9K) [releng_9 tinderbox] failure > on powerpc64/powerpc > > This is obviously a "botched" commit by mav@ that breaks RELENG_9 but > not RELENG_8. > > In CVS I see no further commits to fix this, so I'm CC'ing mav@ here.
This is yet another transient out-of-sync tinderbox issue that I've seen for the past year on current@ (and I'm sure has been happening longer). I've raised the concern to cluster@, des@, and tinderbox@. Thanks, -Garrett _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"