Kurt Roeckx a écrit , Le 30/08/2014 22:32: > 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. > > So if DSA can arange 50 GB of disk space on barber, it would could > build it there. > > Since it was already build on the porterbox, do you plan to upload > that? That's what I intend if there is no solution on the maintainer or buildd sides. Thanks, _g.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature