| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 08:06:24PM -0600, R Hill wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Well, i've been testing this on an x86 laptop and an x86_64 box over the |
| 4 |
>> weekend. Good news is that when it works, it works well. Bad news is I've |
| 5 |
>> yet to be able to get through an 'emerge -e world' without at least a dozen |
| 6 |
>> build failures that resolve themselves when i clear the cache. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Specific merge list would be wonderful... ;) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
And hella long. ;) I'm working on a way to automate narrowing it down somewhat. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
>> The errors |
| 13 |
>> range between unresolved symbols to 'platform does not support (null)' to |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Err... that one I'd be very interested in. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think that one was while building ruby... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> So... what features you got, and what sandbox version? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
sandbox-1.2.17 |
| 22 |
FEATURES="autoconfig ccache confcache digest distlocks parallel-fetch prelink |
| 23 |
sandbox sfperms splitdebug strict" |
| 24 |
CONFCACHE_DIR="/var/cache/confcache" |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
also the same specs on the x86_64 box. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
>> There are apparently a lot of broken configures out there. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Not as many as you would think actually; just takes one to cause some |
| 31 |
> issues though. My personal experience has been different from yours, |
| 32 |
> but reports re: confcache I've been watching/weary about. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
i did one bug report for cyrus-sasl breakage that i eventually tracked down to |
| 35 |
being ruby's fault, but i didn't want to file any others since i really couldn't |
| 36 |
report anything useful other than "$pkg is broked". |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> Personally, any bug reports that come in with confcache enabled should |
| 39 |
> have the confcache disabled imo; just the same as potentially whonky |
| 40 |
> cflags, scale it back to ensure the problem is in the source, not in |
| 41 |
> any bastardization's the users configuration has done to it. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
agree here. i would go as far as to maybe print a message to that effect if the |
| 44 |
build fails while FEATURES="confcache". |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
> Meanwhile, if you're getting failures up the ying yang and it's not |
| 47 |
> tracked down, I'd state tabling the feature (or tagging massively |
| 48 |
> hideous warnings regarding it) is required. Iirc, solar ran a |
| 49 |
> full build with confcache enabled (believe it was 0.3.*), so input |
| 50 |
> from him would be useful also for comparison. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
damn, i don't want to hold this up, especially if no one else is having |
| 53 |
troubles. i have a couple days off right now so i'll do some poking around and |
| 54 |
see what i can come up with. i'll open a bug and assign to you if i figure |
| 55 |
anything out. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
thanks |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
--de. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives