Coq has now been rebuilt .. although I suspect that's largely by luck.
In any case you can go ahead and rebuild any dependencies that you
wanted to.
Thanks,
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843731
Always the same process (ocamlopt.opt) and always on 32 bit only.
The thing is, it *didn't* happen just 3 days ago. Nothing has changed
in the package, and ocamlopt.opt is the same as 3 days ago.
glibc has had a few memory-related fixes in
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=843731
Always the same process (ocamlopt.opt) and always on 32 bit only.
The thing is, it *didn't* happen just 3 days ago. Nothing has changed
in the package, and ocamlopt.opt is the same as 3 days
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:16:32PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
Do you happen to know how much memory that build consumes? Most of
the new builders are 4GB instances(w/ 2GB of swap) - could you be
hitting the top end of memory?
I'm not going to say no -- the binary might be buggy -- but it seems
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 01:16:32PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
Do you happen to know how much memory that build consumes? Most of
the new builders are 4GB instances(w/ 2GB of swap) - could you be
hitting the top end of memory?
I'm not going to
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
Always the same process (ocamlopt.opt) and always on 32 bit only.
The thing is, it *didn't* happen just 3 days ago. Nothing has changed
in the package, and ocamlopt.opt is the same as 3 days ago.
Well you may
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:32:57AM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com
wrote:
Always the same process (ocamlopt.opt) and always on 32 bit only.
The thing is, it *didn't* happen just 3 days ago. Nothing has changed
in the
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
Yes, now I do recall that. Also, I seem to remember that
it built OK (for me) locally, but not in Koji. That would
be quite similar wouldn't it ...
Is there a BZ for the coq failure?
Rich.
No, I never filed
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I never filed one. I've never been sure whether it was a coq
problem, an ocaml problem, or something else. I also haven't tried
building for awhile. I'm going to fire off a scratch build and see
what happens.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:22:09PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I never filed one. I've never been sure whether it was a coq
problem, an ocaml problem, or something else. I also haven't tried
building for awhile.
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:22:09PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I never filed one. I've never been sure whether it was a coq
problem, an ocaml problem, or something
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 05:04:47PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 02:22:09PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I never filed one. I've never been sure
On Fri, 27 Jul 2012, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
If you can - test on your own system on an el6 vm.
Does Koji still use Xen, or is it now on qemu-kvm?
kvm - I don't remember us ever using xen - but I could be blocking it out
of my memory :)
Also - does this build need to connect to
13 matches
Mail list logo
