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

Help with mdk4 FTBFS when building in parallel



Hello team,

I need help investigating why mdk4 randomly fails to build when in
parallel, I've been through the build log and couldn't spot anything.

The failure rate with -j16 is around 85%, I couldn't reproduce the
issue with -j1.

I also can't reproduce the issue directly in the upstream code with
make -j16, this just happens to me when under sbuild (it could have
something to do with the IO performance of schroot + eatmydata +
tmpfs).

My guess is there's something wrong in the Makefile's dependencies,
but I can't point to what exactly.

This same issue is also affecting mdk3, though with a much lower
failure rate (it succeeds most of the time on my machine).

Tail of build log:
ar cru libosdep.a  osdep.o network.o file.o linux.o linux_tap.o
radiotap/radiotap.o common.o
ar cru libosdep.a  osdep.o network.o file.o linux.o linux_tap.o
radiotap/radiotap.o common.o
ar: `u' modifier ignored since `D' is the default (see `U')
ar: `u' modifier ignored since `D' is the default (see `U')
ranlib libosdep.a
make[4]: *** [Makefile:62: .os.Linux] Error 1
make[4]: Leaving directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/src/osdep'
make[3]: *** [Makefile:33: all] Error 2
make[3]: Leaving directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/src/osdep'
make[2]: *** [Makefile:31: osdep/libosdep.a] Error 2
make[2]: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs....
ranlib libosdep.a
touch .os.Linux
make[4]: Leaving directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/src/osdep'
make[3]: Leaving directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/src/osdep'
make[2]: Leaving directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>/src'
make[1]: *** [Makefile:10: all] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/<<PKGBUILDDIR>>'
dh_auto_build: error: make -j16 "INSTALL=install --strip-program=true"
returned exit code 2
make: *** [debian/rules:10: binary] Error 25
dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules binary subprocess returned exit status 2

The build log is too big for me to add to paste.d.n, so please try to
build it in your machine to reproduce.

Thanks,

-- 
Samuel Henrique <samueloph>


Reply to: