Re: Buildbots update

On 24 Jul, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 22/07/2016 Don Lewis wrote: >> On 22 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >>> I've progressed much further > > Thanks Damjan for the (as usual) great progress. > >>> Buildbots >>> should immediately fail the build if ./bootstrap fails >> Yes, there is no sense in

Re: Buildbots update

On 24 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Don Lewis wrote: > >> On 22 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> > I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly, >> > openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and >> >

Re: Buildbots update

On 22/07/2016 Don Lewis wrote: On 22 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: I've progressed much further Thanks Damjan for the (as usual) great progress. Buildbots should immediately fail the build if ./bootstrap fails Yes, there is no sense in continuing if bootstrap fails Yes, sure. 5 hours is

Re: Buildbots update

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Don Lewis wrote: > On 22 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > > I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly, > > openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and > > openoffice-linux64-rat are now building, while >

Re: Buildbots update

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly, > openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and > openoffice-linux64-rat are now building, while openoffice-linux32-snapshot > is only

Re: Buildbots update

On 22 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly, > openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and > openoffice-linux64-rat are now building, while openoffice-linux32-snapshot > is only temporarily breaking due to SourceForge issues. I've

Re: Buildbots update

Am 07/22/2016 09:09 AM, schrieb Damjan Jovanovic: I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly, openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and openoffice-linux64-rat are now building, while openoffice-linux32-snapshot is only temporarily breaking due to SourceForge

Re: Buildbots update

On 7/22/2016 12:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: ... I'll experiment a lot more over the weekend, but right now I think the problem could be that the buildbot runs VSVARS.BAT to set up the Visual Studio environment, which (presumably) contains the evil DEVENV that break the build and locks files

Re: Buildbots update

I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly, openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and openoffice-linux64-rat are now building, while openoffice-linux32-snapshot is only temporarily breaking due to SourceForge issues. I've also made some interesting discoveries

Re: Buildbots update

On 07/19/2016 11:17 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > Hi > > I contacted Infra on HipChat and asked them to fix the buildbots I could > find with the Perl LWP::Protocol::https problem (aoo-w7snap, > openoffice-fbsd-nightly, and openoffice-linux32-nightly) or give me access > to do it myself, and

Buildbots update

Hi I contacted Infra on HipChat and asked them to fix the buildbots I could find with the Perl LWP::Protocol::https problem (aoo-w7snap, openoffice-fbsd-nightly, and openoffice-linux32-nightly) or give me access to do it myself, and @pono fixed at least the openoffice-linux32-nightly bot. The

Re: Buildbots update

Damjan Jovanovic wrote: I've asked infra to get LWP::Protocol::https installed on all the buildbots and they're working on it. Thanks for debugging, this will hopefully solve it. So indeed the issue is on the buildbots side but it was related to SourceForge now enforcing HTTPS downloads. I

Re: Buildbots update

Steps 1-4 first delete the "source" directory, do a fresh SVN checkout (not update) into "source", delete the "build" directory, and copy "source" to "build". The build is then run in "build". This was the only robust way to get it working and fix all the errors and timeouts that were happening

Re: Buildbots update

[top posting] hmmm...maybe I've figured out the problem? using Linux-32 nightly as the example. Take a look at the PWD variable in this listing: https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux32-nightly/builds/191/steps/configure/logs/stdio and the corresponding TARFILE_LOCATION (which is

Re: Buildbots update

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Kay Schenk wrote: > >> On 02/13/2016 11:45 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> >>> it seems that buildbots are having issues with network in general >>> >> Do we have any additional news on the download failures

Re: Buildbots update

Kay Schenk wrote: On 02/13/2016 11:45 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: it seems that buildbots are having issues with network in general Do we have any additional news on the download failures specifically from the buildbots to SourceForge downloads? Why SourceForge? Look at

Re: Buildbots update

On 02/13/2016 11:45 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> The buildbots are all failing to download 15 dependencies every night >> now. I think something is wrong with access to SourceForge :-(. > > Well, from what I see for example here >

Re: Buildbots update

On 02/12/2016 10:43 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> >> >> On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM,

Re: Buildbots update

Damjan Jovanovic wrote: The buildbots are all failing to download 15 dependencies every night now. I think something is wrong with access to SourceForge :-(. Well, from what I see for example here

Re: Buildbots update

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >>> >>> On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: All the *nix buildbots are

Re: Buildbots update

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> >> All the *nix buildbots are now green and should be building 100% reliably. > > YAY! > I jinxed it, many bots failed in ./bootstrap as they couldn't download

Re: Buildbots update

On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >> >> On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >>> >>> All the *nix buildbots are now green and should be building 100% reliably. >> >> YAY! >> > > I jinxed it,

Re: Buildbots update

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: > > > On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: >>> >>> On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: All the *nix buildbots are

Buildbots update

Hi Most of the common problems with the buildbots have been fixed: * The Windows buildbots were failing to determine the SVN revision being built, showing "UNKNOWN". This was fixed by running the "svn info" command under Cygwin, as the Windows build bots do not have the Windows version of SVN

Re: Buildbots update

On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: > Hi > > Most of the common problems with the buildbots have been fixed: > * The Windows buildbots were failing to determine the SVN revision > being built, showing "UNKNOWN". This was fixed by running the "svn > info" command under Cygwin, as the