Peter,
I also tried running the command that returns error code 64 on the same
system that runs the automated tests, and it downloaded the correct file
for that operating system and architecture. So I'm not sure why it's
failing when run through buildbot, but I'll look into it and get back to
you.
I've added a trello card to track progress on this issue:
https://trello.com/c/9ERDMc7j/1079-toolshed-investigate-cause-of-shell-commands-failing-through-buildbot-when-they-are-valid-commands
--Dave B.
On 08/26/2013 10:32 AM, Peter Cock wrote:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Dave Bouvier <d...@bx.psu.edu> wrote:
Peter,
I apologize for the delay, here is the information you requested:
ubuntu@ip-10-0-0-243:~$ uname -a
Linux ip-10-0-0-243 3.8.0-25-generic #37-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 6 20:47:07 UTC
2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
ubuntu@ip-10-0-0-243:~$ arch
x86_64
ubuntu@ip-10-0-0-243:~$ echo $0
-bash
--Dave B.
Thanks Dave,
Sadly that looks just like my server where it works,
$ uname
Linux
$ arch
x86_64
$ echo $0
-bash
I was considering trying to have the tool_dependencies.xml install
recipe call a shell or Python script instead - but the new Tool Shed
"Tool dependency definition" repository type prevents that (unless
using a workaround like downloading the script first).
Hmm. Does anyone have any ideas on this error return code 64?
Regards,
Peter
___________________________________________________________
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all"
in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this
and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at:
http://lists.bx.psu.edu/
To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at:
http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/
