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

Re: Pandoc build status?



On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 04:18:02PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am Dienstag, den 27.03.2012, 21:49 +0200 schrieb Iustin Pop:
> > I looked at
> > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=pandoc&suite=sid&compact=compact
> > and it shows pandoc as having the following build failures:
> > 
> > - i386, sparc: pandoc-1.9.1.1-d52ba5f3dfa50033e02c4efb4fcaa204 is
> >   unusable due to missing or recursive dependencies:
> >   zip-archive-0.1.1.7-463904d956f1052cc58a2c9e5deeee2c
> 
> strange, pandoc is built, there is only one zip-archive installed, so
> why would it reference a different zip-archive hash? And why does it
> fail during the haddock phase? I have not seen that before...
> 
> I gave back the build, maybe it is temporary.

On i386 and sparc it built fine already, thanks.

> > - mips, s390: virtual memory exhausted: Cannot allocate memory
> > - mipsel: E: Caught signal 'Terminated': terminating immediately
> > - hurd-i386: hlibrary.setup: /usr/bin/ghc-pkg: interrupted
> > 
> > I'm not familiar with the mips/s390 ports (do they really have so few
> > virtual memory?), but at least the i386/sparc builds look like they
> > should be retried, right? If so, is anyone familiar with requesting a
> > retry?
> 
> I scheduled a retry, but if virtual memory is the bound then it maybe
> well be that we have to remove the packages on these arches; not even a
> machine with more physical memory would help. At least s390 has only
> half the virtual memory that i386 has and indeed this causes a few
> packages to fail.

I see. I didn't know that pandoc has such high build requirements.

It failed again on s390, I would presume it'll fail on mips too.

Since I need pandoc to go from markdown to man page, does this mean I
would be better served with storing the built man page in the debian/
directory and VCS, and installing it directly (instead of building it
from markdown at build time)? One less build dependency, but one more
manual step. Hmmm…

thanks,
iustin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: