The build got up to octave [4002/12503] and the computer crashed and dumped
core. I think it's because I was trying to kill a process, of which there
should be at most one because it's a cron job, of which there were eleven,
and then ran pidof to see if any new ones had popped up. I will, as I
On Tuesday 05 June 2012 19:47:07 Justin Sherrill wrote:
Your computer crashed during the build too, possibly from the same issue.
I don't think you are going to get any farther than I did.
I'm up to 2776, and 2485 was SDL_gfx as before, so I got farther than I did,
and the crash was not caused
doesn't.
If I run clean.sh -q, will that continue where it left off instead of
rebuilding most of the already built packages?
Hopefully I'll have learned how to finish a bulk build by the time 2012Q2 is
out.
Pierre
--
li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa
failures because of it. pkgin
handles this pretty well, but pkg_rolling-replace doesn't.
If I run clean.sh -q, will that continue where it left off instead of
rebuilding most of the already built packages?
Hopefully I'll have learned how to finish a bulk build by the time 2012Q2 is
out.
You're
to do is build all the packages, so that anyone who
wants to upgrade can do so easily. What is the correct way to restart a bulk
build where it left off? Who's going to build the packages for 2012Q2, since
your computer has crashed?
If you want to rebuild your python packages, write down
On Tuesday 05 June 2012 16:59:53 Pierre Abbat wrote:
What is the correct way to restart a bulk build where it left off?
I found this in the man page of pbulk-build:
It then writes suc-
cessful builds to success and failing builds to error. If either success
or error exists at start
On Jun 5, 2012 5:03 PM, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu wrote:
No I'm not. What I want to do is build all the packages, so that anyone
who
wants to upgrade can do so easily. What is the correct way to restart a
bulk
build where it left off? Who's going to build the packages for 2012Q2,
since
On Tuesday, June 05, 2012 07:47:07 PM Justin Sherrill wrote:
Your computer crashed during the build too, possibly from the same issue. I
don't think you are going to get any farther than I did.
Ah. I understood that you had a failure such as a head crash or a burned-out
motherboard that made
# du -s *
7 COPYRIGHT
0 IN_CHROOT
10037 bin
839 boot
1 build.sh
51972 bulklog
0 compat
0 dev
2782472 distfiles
9477etc
0 home
0 media
0 mnt
2059650 packages
0 proc
1 root
35711 sbin
3 settings.conf
0 sys
0
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:13:48 +0200, Pierre Abbat p...@phma.optus.nu
wrote:
# du -s *
7 COPYRIGHT
0 IN_CHROOT
10037 bin
839 boot
1 build.sh
51972 bulklog
0 compat
0 dev
2782472 distfiles
9477etc
0 home
0 media
0 mnt
2059650 packages
0
reblock 1d 5m
recopy29d 10m
Before I started the bulk build, it finished hammer in less than an hour. It
now takes half a day or more. I just ran ps and got this:
-bash-4.2$ ps waux|grep hammer
phma71667 40.0 0.1 4144 1224 0 DLM+5:02PM 0:00.05 grep hammer
root -1 0.0 0.0
On Thursday 24 May 2012 14:58:32 Justin Sherrill wrote:
If you're using my simplepbulk script, run clean.sh again without the
-a qualifier, and it'll rescan and restart with only unbuilt
packages.
Also, this will possibly happen again. I've had trouble getting
builds to finish due to bug
I brought up Firefox (I had been doing it on the laptop, but I took it out
last night and will take it out tonight) and Gimp on darner. Also hammer has
been running over 13 hours, which is highly unusual; usually it takes 20 or
40 minutes. I have over 70 GB on the disk that holds the bulk build
20 or
40 minutes. I have over 70 GB on the disk that holds the bulk build. The
computer hung. On the window that's showing the bulk build, I see this:
[1736/12501] Starting build of tex-pst-3dplot-1.94
[1736/12501] Failed to build tex-pst-3dplot-1.94
[1752/12501] Starting build
Here's the state of the bulk build for pkgsrc-2010Q4:
DragonFly 2.8/i386: 5864 packages built so far
DragonFly 2.8/x86_64: 10304 packages built so far
DragonFly 2.9/i386: 3144 packages built so far
DragonFly 2.9/x86_64: All 10483 packages done - uploading now.
The report from the 2.9/x86_64
Jordan Gordeev jgord...@dir.bg wrote:
Johannes Hofmann wrote:
Hi,
is anyone using the bulk build script mk/bulk/build successfully on
DragonFly?
[...]
Any ideas?
I suggest you use the new method of doing bulk builds - pbulk.
It's a package available at /usr/pkgsrc/pkgtools/pbulk
Hi,
is anyone using the bulk build script mk/bulk/build successfully on
DragonFly?
After setting up a chroot environment and bootstrapping I can
manually build packages, but sh mk/bulk/build
gives me (after a while):
Complete dependency database left in /usr/pkgsrc/.bulk_db
Appending
Johannes Hofmann wrote:
Hi,
is anyone using the bulk build script mk/bulk/build successfully on
DragonFly?
[...]
Any ideas?
I suggest you use the new method of doing bulk builds - pbulk.
It's a package available at /usr/pkgsrc/pkgtools/pbulk.
Some documentation on how to use:
1. http
hey,
i finally finished the pkgsrc bulk build for 1.10 and these are the results:
http://chlamydia.fs.ei.tum.de/~corecode/unsorted/bulkbuild/20070726.2220/meta/report.html
There is quite some breakage, please go down the list and check if you can fix
an issue for the package you'd like
I completed two pkgsrc bulk builds. The following is from the report it
generated. (The first bulk build reporting didn't work.)
The actual count of packages I see on the system is 2851 packages. Some
significant packages that were packaged:
apache 1
perl
xorg-server
thttpd
stunnel
This is great! Keep up the good work!
--
- Liam J. Foy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.bsd-systems.co.uk
Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
I completed two pkgsrc bulk builds. The following is from the report it
generated. (The first bulk build reporting didn't work.)
hey this looks really great!
is this the standard output of a pkgsrc bulk run? Or did you do some
serious scripting yourself?
cheers
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
I completed two pkgsrc bulk builds. The following is from the report it
generated. (The first bulk build reporting didn't work.)
hey this looks really great!
is this the standard output of a pkgsrc bulk run? Or did you do some serious
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 12:00:17AM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
PackageBreaks Maintainer
--
lang/tcl 139 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's broken with this? I thought I had the necessary patches in my
:
:On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
:
: I completed two pkgsrc bulk builds. The following is from the report it
: generated. (The first bulk build reporting didn't work.)
:
: hey this looks really great!
:
: is this the standard output of a pkgsrc bulk run? Or did you do
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Matthew Dillon wrote:
The report shouldn't eat up all that much bandwidth (at least not compared
to e.g. downloading the package sources), so I wouldn't worry about it.
The report links to the build logs which are many megabytes in size,
totalling:
573M
haven't used all of your patches yet. And this bulk build was started
before some patches were put in place.
graphics/netpbm103 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hm. What is broken here?
error: invalid lvalue in assignment
Due to newer gcc I think.
I already found and tested fix. Will commit
27 matches
Mail list logo
