pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [pcp] QA status - warning

To: Ken McDonell <kenj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [pcp] QA status - warning
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 05:35:12 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: PCP Mailing List <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <51909DA0.3020402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <51823EB3.1030003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <51899D55.20202@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1964501527.12596632.1367975338274.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <5189E7B2.30501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1154906569.13931543.1368141029088.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <51902A5B.9080808@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1160902372.350447.1368404259385.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxx> <51909DA0.3020402@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: rsrOxb9Ar0PNur2R8deSMFw/OWOCxQ==
Thread-topic: QA status - warning

----- Original Message -----
> On 13/05/13 10:17, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Hi Ken,
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> I need someone to help resolve the problem below that I reported several
> >> days ago and leaves rpm packaging broken on at least Fedora 18.
> > 
> > Did 3.7.2 work on this host (vm03)?  I don't think we've got anything
> > new/changed in the perl build since 3.7.2, so seems odd.  If it passed
> > in 3.7.2, then there might be something strange in the qa host setup -
> > the auto-builders here had no problem with f18 (although that's not
> > using the Makepkgs script).
> 
> Yes ... only started failing in the last week, may be 2 weeks.  Is there any
> parallel gmake being done in the rpm packaging?
> 

Not explicitly - might be worth reverting the parallel make commit
(91917ccf3954bb39e495faa4ff5da1090fc6dfec) and seeing if anything
changes though?

cheers.

--
Nathan

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>