Thread: -HEAD on FreeBSD 6-CURRENT build failures

-HEAD on FreeBSD 6-CURRENT build failures

From
Darcy Buskermolen
Date:
There looks to be an issue with gram.y  as seen in the following 2 FreeBSD6 
boxen:

http://pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=herring&dt=2005-01-28%2018:33:43
http://pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=echidna&dt=2005-01-28%2018:30:01


-- 
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx:  250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com


Re: -HEAD on FreeBSD 6-CURRENT build failures

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.com> writes:
> There looks to be an issue with gram.y  as seen in the following 2 FreeBSD6 
> boxen:

> http://pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=herring&dt=2005-01-28%2018:33:43
> http://pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=echidna&dt=2005-01-28%2018:30:01

The "issue" is that your make is broken: it's failed to regenerate
gram.c from the recently updated gram.y.

The impression I have gained from watching the build farm is that ccache
is seriously unreliable --- the machines using it often show transient
build failures that look like failure to update derived files.
        regards, tom lane


Re: -HEAD on FreeBSD 6-CURRENT build failures

From
Andrew Dunstan
Date:

Tom Lane wrote:

>Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.com> writes:
>  
>
>>There looks to be an issue with gram.y  as seen in the following 2 FreeBSD6 
>>boxen:
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>http://pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=herring&dt=2005-01-28%2018:33:43
>>http://pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=echidna&dt=2005-01-28%2018:30:01
>>    
>>
>
>The "issue" is that your make is broken: it's failed to regenerate
>gram.c from the recently updated gram.y.
>
>The impression I have gained from watching the build farm is that ccache
>is seriously unreliable --- the machines using it often show transient
>build failures that look like failure to update derived files.
>
>
>  
>

The way buildfarm works is that it should always run on a clean set of 
CVS files - i.e. there should no gram.c. We don't even bot6her with 
clean, distclean, maintainer-clean and friends - we simply copy the 
source directory tree for each run. The fact that Darcy's builds don't 
show a call to bison indicates to me that his source dir ( 
/buildfarm/pg-buildfarm/HEAD/pgsql ) might not be clean for some reason 
that is not clear to me.

Darcy, please blow that directory tree away and see if the situation 
recovers.

cheers

andrew


Re: -HEAD on FreeBSD 6-CURRENT build failures

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> The way buildfarm works is that it should always run on a clean set of 
> CVS files - i.e. there should no gram.c. We don't even bot6her with 
> clean, distclean, maintainer-clean and friends - we simply copy the 
> source directory tree for each run. The fact that Darcy's builds don't 
> show a call to bison indicates to me that his source dir ( 
> /buildfarm/pg-buildfarm/HEAD/pgsql ) might not be clean for some reason 
> that is not clear to me.

Hmm, source directory used for a build and then not maintainer-clean'd
perhaps?

If you do the copy without -p then the copy would tend to lose the
timestamps that would show that the gram.c file is out of date.
I suppose "cp -p" would be a bad idea because of permissions issues,
but you could consider replacing the cp with "tar cf - | tar xf -"
to preserve timestamps better.
        regards, tom lane


Re: -HEAD on FreeBSD 6-CURRENT build failures

From
Andrew Dunstan
Date:

Tom Lane wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>  
>
>>The way buildfarm works is that it should always run on a clean set of 
>>CVS files - i.e. there should no gram.c. We don't even bot6her with 
>>clean, distclean, maintainer-clean and friends - we simply copy the 
>>source directory tree for each run. The fact that Darcy's builds don't 
>>show a call to bison indicates to me that his source dir ( 
>>/buildfarm/pg-buildfarm/HEAD/pgsql ) might not be clean for some reason 
>>that is not clear to me.
>>    
>>
>
>Hmm, source directory used for a build and then not maintainer-clean'd
>perhaps?
>  
>

That would do it. Basically the user should not touch anything inside 
<buildroot>, any more that they should touch anything in <datadir>/base.

>If you do the copy without -p then the copy would tend to lose the
>timestamps that would show that the gram.c file is out of date.
>I suppose "cp -p" would be a bad idea because of permissions issues,
>but you could consider replacing the cp with "tar cf - | tar xf -"
>to preserve timestamps better.
>
>
>  
>

If we needed to, yes. rsync also works very nicely on stuff like this - 
and I have been using it in my day job for such a purpose. But I think 
the answer in this case is "don't do that." Darcy has cleaned out his 
source directory and all now seems well.

cheers

andrew