[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#976935: inkscape: FTBFS on ppc64el: make[3]: *** No rule to make target 'po/zh_TW.gmo', needed by 'share/templates/default_templates.timestamp'. Stop.



On 11/12/20 at 16:42 +0100, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> Control: tag -1 unreproducible
> 
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 09:36:42AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build
> > on ppc64el. At the same time, it did not fail on amd64.
> > 
> > I'm marking this bug as severity:serious since your package currently has
> > ppc64el binary packages in unstable (so this is a regression).
> 
> That's surprising.
> 
> > > make[3]: Entering directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/obj-powerpc64le-linux-gnu'
> > > make[3]: *** No rule to make target 'po/zh_TW.gmo', needed by 'share/templates/default_templates.timestamp'.  Stop.
> > > make[3]: Leaving directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/obj-powerpc64le-linux-gnu'
> > > make[2]: *** [CMakeFiles/Makefile2:6529: share/templates/CMakeFiles/default_templates.dir/all] Error 2
> 
> TBH, such a failure reeks of parallelism-induced inconsistency in the
> makefile.  which is surprising since this package uses cmake…
> 
> > The full build log is available from:
> >    http://qa-logs.debian.net/2020/12/09/inkscape_1.0.1-2_unstable.log
> > 
> > If you fail to reproduce this, please provide a build log and diff it with me
> > so that we can identify if something relevant changed in the meantime.
> 
> Indeed I tried on plummer.d.o and I couldn't reproduce this.
> Attached is my build log, but I couldn't really spot anything due to the
> re-ordered log lines.
> Anyway, that .gmo is correctly produced.
> 
> Do you have any hint as to what might have caused such failure on your
> hand?

Hi,

I tried again under the same conditions (just to make sure it wasn't
transient) and could reproduce the failure.

I also tried after disabling SMT (so the machine has only 20 visible
CPUs) and it succeeded.

Still with SMT disabled, I tried with forcing
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=parallel=200, and it failed. Can you reproduce it like
that?

Lucas


Reply to: