On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 10:32:50PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 08:10:41PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 03:34:32PM +0200, Gilles Filippini wrote: > > > insighttoolkit4 repeatedly FTBFS on amd64 [1] because of ENOSPC. A > > > manual build on porterbox barriere.debian.org reported a need of ~44GB > > > while it failed on buildd barber at approx 37GB of disk space. > > > > > > [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=insighttoolkit4&arch=amd64 > > > > > > I really don't know how the build space could be optimized. The only > > > solutions I can think of right now are: > > > * force the build on a buildd with at least 44GB of free space > > > * do a source + amd64 binary upload instead of source only upload. > > > > > > Note: this is blocking the ongoing hdf5 transition. > > > > I wonder if we should standardize on 50 GB everywhere. But then at some point > > there needs to be a cut-off. And if the packaging could be optimized to need > > less (i.e. avoid unnecessary disk use), that'd be splendid. > > I actually don't have an amd64 buildd that has both enough RAM and > disk space. Brahms is the only one with enough disk space, but it > only has 2 GB of RAM and gcc gets OOM killed there. I'd argue that 2 GB of RAM for a builder is a tad silly these times. Kind regards Philipp Kern
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature