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

Re: Bug#913709: boost1.67: intermitent FTBFS on mips64el: build hangs

Hi Giovanni,

On 14/11/2018 10:29, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
> Hi,
> Il 14/11/18 09:56, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort ha scritto:
>> Your package fails to build quite often on mips64el, where the build gets
>> killed due to inactivity:
>> Cannot find class named 'action'
>> Cannot find class named 'action'
>> Cannot find class named 'file-target'
>> Cannot find class named 'generator'
>> Cannot find class named 'generator'
>> Cannot find class named 'std::bad_cast'
>> E: Build killed with signal TERM after 150 minutes of inactivity
>> This  may be due to an actual hang, or something just taking so long
>> that causes the build to get killed.
> Thanks for bringing this up. Actually, I was concerned about the same
> thing, but I do not really know what is the way forward here.
> The "Cannot find class" messages are harmless: they are produced on all
> architectures and are not fatal. It is not a compiler that produces
> them, but a documentation postprocessor. So the worse that can happen is
> that some internal links in the documentation are broken or ignored.
> Looking at [1] and comparing with [2] it seems that the compilation
> takes much longer when compiled on a "Loongson 3A" machine then when
> compiled on a "Cavium Octeon III" machine. MIPS porters, is this
> sensible? The longer compilation time (apparently ~8.5h vs ~4.75h)
> triggers the build node timeout. However this is probably a close call,
> because version 1.67.0-6 managed to finish even when building on a
> weaker machine.
>  [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=boost1.67&arch=mips64el
>  [2]
> https://wiki.debian.org/MIPSPort?action=show&redirect=mips64el#Build_daemons_.26_porter_boxes
> I am not sure of what is the way forward here: can larger packages, like
> boost, be forced to compile on stronger machines? Or can the timeout be
> raised for larger packages? Or is there anything that can I due within
> the package compilation script to avoid triggering timeout? (although
> this last road seems to be risky, as it might then prevent triggering
> the timeout for an actually stuck build process). In line of principle
> even the current situation can somewhat be tolerated, since it is enough
> to reschedule the build until it gets a strong machine. However, that
> does not seem optimal.

Yeah, it's not.

Some questions which may help solve this:

- What is happening when the build hangs? Is xsltproc still running, just being
too slow / taking way too long?
- Note that the inactivity timeout gets triggered only if there are no new lines
printed in the timeout period. So can xsltproc or whatever is getting killed be
made more verbose?
- Is this just generating documentation? The -doc package is architecture: all,
can't we just skip building the docs on binary-arch builds?


Reply to: