"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <lilypond-a...@mandereau.net> > To: <lilypond-a...@gnu.org> > Cc: <lilypond-devel@gnu.org> > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 1:09 PM > Subject: Patchy email > > >> 10:35:11 (UTC) Begin LilyPond compile, previous commit at >> f7085cf9b2ff111b7d30c8a59e367c771a7e3c52 >> >> 10:35:13 Merged staging, now at: 1ec92395c0ac0f8aa26cf4e2472ef21d9c620b32 >> >> 10:35:16 Success: ./autogen.sh --noconfigure >> >> 10:35:49 Success: ../configure --disable-optimising >> >> 10:36:09 Success: nice make clean -j2 CPU_COUNT=2 >> >> 10:43:08 Success: nice make -j2 CPU_COUNT=2 >> >> 11:02:32 Success: nice make test -j2 CPU_COUNT=2 >> >> 12:09:06 *** FAILED BUILD *** >> >> nice make doc -j2 CPU_COUNT=2 >> >> Previous good commit: f7085cf9b2ff111b7d30c8a59e367c771a7e3c52 >> >> Current broken commit: 1ec92395c0ac0f8aa26cf4e2472ef21d9c620b32 >> >> 12:09:06 *** FAILED STEP *** >> >> merge from staging >> >> Failed runner: nice make doc -j2 CPU_COUNT=2 >> >> See the log file log-staging-nice-make-doc--j2-CPU_COUNT=2.txt > > > Can't see any reason why patchy ran and failed, unless it's because I > started my patchy later and finished earlier and pushed staging to > master.
I suspected a fishy DOC string from me, but that looks clean enough. The error message does not sound like a fetch timing problem, but rather like a genuine doc build error. Either a problem on the machine (interrupt/shutdown/bad memory) or a race condition in our build system that does not always trigger. Or a dependency on the Texinfo version or some unsatisfied platform dependency. But if that is the case, we should get the failure consistently in future, and there is probably some hint in the log files from running configure. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
