Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
Zitat von Derek Atkins de...@ihtfp.com: 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. I think the gnome installation from scratch somehow doesn't pass the final version check (anymore). If that's true, the very same issue would appear when trying to install the gnome directory of the trunk build from scratch. @Derek: Can you remove the c:\soft\gnome directory and trigger the normal build manually? If the gnome directory has a problem, we will see the same error in the normal build's output then. Thanks! Christian ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes: Zitat von Derek Atkins de...@ihtfp.com: 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. I think the gnome installation from scratch somehow doesn't pass the final version check (anymore). If that's true, the very same issue would appear when trying to install the gnome directory of the trunk build from scratch. @Derek: Can you remove the c:\soft\gnome directory and trigger the normal build manually? If the gnome directory has a problem, we will see the same error in the normal build's output then. Yep, just did that and look, it failed. :) The error was slightly different, tho. Now it says: !!! gnome not installed correctly: no pixman-1 with atleast-version= !!! !!! ABORTING !!! Thanks! Christian -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH warl...@mit.eduPGP key available ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu: @Derek: Can you remove the c:\soft\gnome directory and trigger the normal build manually? If the gnome directory has a problem, we will see the same error in the normal build's output then. Yep, just did that and look, it failed. :) The error was slightly different, tho. Now it says: !!! gnome not installed correctly: no pixman-1 with atleast-version= !!! !!! ABORTING !!! Ok, r22864 is the next try. In February, the pixman installation was removed, but one final check for it still remained. Can you trigger the build again? No need to remove anything tho. Christian ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes: Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu: @Derek: Can you remove the c:\soft\gnome directory and trigger the normal build manually? If the gnome directory has a problem, we will see the same error in the normal build's output then. Yep, just did that and look, it failed. :) The error was slightly different, tho. Now it says: !!! gnome not installed correctly: no pixman-1 with atleast-version= !!! !!! ABORTING !!! Ok, r22864 is the next try. In February, the pixman installation was removed, but one final check for it still remained. Can you trigger the build again? No need to remove anything tho. Christian Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now it's building the gnucash code itself so I would call it progress. If this succeeds then we probably need to re-tag 2.5.0. I'll keep an eye out and send another message. -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH warl...@mit.eduPGP key available ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu writes: Ok, r22864 is the next try. In February, the pixman installation was removed, but one final check for it still remained. Can you trigger the build again? No need to remove anything tho. Christian Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now it's building the gnucash code itself so I would call it progress. If this succeeds then we probably need to re-tag 2.5.0. I'll keep an eye out and send another message. FYI, trunk seems to have built correctly.. Now it's doing the daily weekly build of 2.4. Perhaps we should reduce that to weekly again? :) -derek -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH warl...@mit.eduPGP key available ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu: Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now it's building the gnucash code itself so I would call it progress. If this succeeds then we probably need to re-tag 2.5.0. I'll keep an eye out and send another message. FYI, trunk seems to have built correctly.. Now it's doing the daily weekly build of 2.4. Perhaps we should reduce that to weekly again? :) Good. This means we need to re-tag 2.5.0 with current trunk, as the install-impl.sh of the tag itself wouldn't build. Yes, the 2.4 branch can be switched back to weekly build. This was done by locally editing the file weekly_build.sh - the file is still open in the text editor on the server, probably. Regards, Christian ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes: Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu: Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now it's building the gnucash code itself so I would call it progress. If this succeeds then we probably need to re-tag 2.5.0. I'll keep an eye out and send another message. FYI, trunk seems to have built correctly.. Now it's doing the daily weekly build of 2.4. Perhaps we should reduce that to weekly again? :) Good. This means we need to re-tag 2.5.0 with current trunk, as the install-impl.sh of the tag itself wouldn't build. Yep. Can you do that? Yes, the 2.4 branch can be switched back to weekly build. This was done by locally editing the file weekly_build.sh - the file is still open in the text editor on the server, probably. Done. Fixed that. :) Regards, Christian -derek -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH warl...@mit.eduPGP key available ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu wrote: Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes: Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu: Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now it's building the gnucash code itself so I would call it progress. If this succeeds then we probably need to re-tag 2.5.0. I'll keep an eye out and send another message. FYI, trunk seems to have built correctly.. Now it's doing the daily weekly build of 2.4. Perhaps we should reduce that to weekly again? :) Good. This means we need to re-tag 2.5.0 with current trunk, as the install-impl.sh of the tag itself wouldn't build. Yep. Can you do that? Alex checked something into trunk yesterday, so I'd better run distcheck again first to test it. Regards, John Ralls ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
On Tue, April 2, 2013 12:57 pm, John Ralls wrote: On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu wrote: Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes: Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu: Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now it's building the gnucash code itself so I would call it progress. If this succeeds then we probably need to re-tag 2.5.0. I'll keep an eye out and send another message. FYI, trunk seems to have built correctly.. Now it's doing the daily weekly build of 2.4. Perhaps we should reduce that to weekly again? :) Good. This means we need to re-tag 2.5.0 with current trunk, as the install-impl.sh of the tag itself wouldn't build. Yep. Can you do that? Alex checked something into trunk yesterday, so I'd better run distcheck again first to test it. Ok. Also, FYI, even though the 2.4 daily/weekly build succeeded, it did NOT copy its results to code. I don't know why. If we care about 2.4 then we might want to look into this. If we don't care then I guess it's not a big deal. Regards, John Ralls -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
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
On Apr 2, 2013, at 10:36 AM, Derek Atkins de...@ihtfp.com wrote: On Tue, April 2, 2013 12:57 pm, John Ralls wrote: On Apr 2, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu wrote: Christian Stimming christ...@cstimming.de writes: Zitat von Derek Atkins warl...@mit.edu: Triggered, and it definitely made it past the gnome step. Right now it's building the gnucash code itself so I would call it progress. If this succeeds then we probably need to re-tag 2.5.0. I'll keep an eye out and send another message. FYI, trunk seems to have built correctly.. Now it's doing the daily weekly build of 2.4. Perhaps we should reduce that to weekly again? :) Good. This means we need to re-tag 2.5.0 with current trunk, as the install-impl.sh of the tag itself wouldn't build. Yep. Can you do that? Alex checked something into trunk yesterday, so I'd better run distcheck again first to test it. Ok. Also, FYI, even though the 2.4 daily/weekly build succeeded, it did NOT copy its results to code. I don't know why. If we care about 2.4 then we might want to look into this. If we don't care then I guess it's not a big deal. OK, Retagged. I'll proceed with everything else this afternoon -- I have to go to an appointment now. ISTM we'll want one more 2.4 release this summer, so it would be good to get it fixed. Do we know for sure that what's wrong there isn't also broken on trunk/2.5? Regards, John Ralls ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
On Tue, April 2, 2013 1:44 pm, John Ralls wrote: OK, Retagged. I'll proceed with everything else this afternoon -- I have to go to an appointment now. That's fine. I'll fire it off if I get the chance, or just let it fire itself tonight.. ISTM we'll want one more 2.4 release this summer, so it would be good to get it fixed. Do we know for sure that what's wrong there isn't also broken on trunk/2.5? Yes, because the trunk build copied over just fine. So the issue is limited to 2.4 (both branch and tags). Regards, John Ralls -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
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
On Tue, April 2, 2013 1:44 pm, John Ralls wrote: ISTM we'll want one more 2.4 release this summer, so it would be good to get it fixed. Do we know for sure that what's wrong there isn't also broken on trunk/2.5? Actually, I was wrong. The 2.4 branch build did copy over. Mea Culpa. I was reading the output incorrectly. So it was only an issue with the 2.4.12 tag build. Hard to say what happened; we could do a clean branch build and re-test, I guess. Or just wait until we release a 2.4.13 and handle it manually then. Regards, John Ralls -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
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
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. 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. Regards, Christian ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Release Builds 2.5.0 Failed (2.4.12 has finished)
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
