Hi,
On Mon, April 1, 2013 3:53 pm, Christian Stimming wrote:
> Am Montag, 1. April 2013, 13:12:15 schrieb Derek Atkins:
>> "Derek Atkins" <de...@ihtfp.com> writes:
>> > Hi there.
>> > One more update.
>> >
>> > It looks like the 2.4 daily build completed and uploaded just fine.
>> > However it did not go ahead and build the 2.5.0 tag.
>> >
>> > I don't know why it didn't (re-?)build 2.5.0. I don't see anything in
>> > the logs. And I don't see why the 2.4.12 tag build would fail where
>> > the 2.4 branch build worked fine.. :(
>>
>> FYI, I removed the 2.5.0 tag from the list of tags in
>> /c/soft/packaing/tags -- I'm not sure if that's the right place or not?
>> There are like three copies of the packaging directory in various places
>> and I don't know which is the right one anymore. The bat file seems to
>> use all of them for some reason.
>>
>> I did not restart the daily build to try to rebuild the 2.5.0 tag. I'd
>> like to try to figure out why the 2.4.12 tag-build failed, too. :-/
>
> I'd like to ignore the 2.4.12 tag as we've successfully reached a 2.4.12
> binary.
Okay. If we don't have a 2.4.13 then it's really not an issue.
> As for the 2.5.0 tag: You've removed the line from the correct tag file. I
> don't know why it didn't run. I did the same thing a few minutes ago: I
> removed the 2.5.0 line from the file c:\soft\packaging\tags and ran the
> build_tags.sh script in that directory manually. It's now correctly
> building
> the 2.5.0 tag; let's see how far it gets. It should at least copy the
> resulting log file to the webserver.
Yeah. It died in the same place it did before. The logfile got copied
over, but it still died building gnome/libxml.
> Regards,
>
> Christian
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
de...@ihtfp.com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
