Re: automake-wrapper conflicts

On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 10:41 AM blubee blubeeme wrote: > I am getting some build errors around automake-wrapper. > > I tried deinstalling automake-wrapper and then installing automake but > then during the installation of automake I get this error: > > install-info: warning: no info dir entry in

automake-wrapper conflicts

I am getting some build errors around automake-wrapper. I tried deinstalling automake-wrapper and then installing automake but then during the installation of automake I get this error: install-info: warning: no info dir entry in `/usr/ports/devel/automake/work/stage/usr/local/info/automake-histo

Re: make distribution fails, A failure has been detected in another branch of the parallel make

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, at 4:08 PM, Brad Davis wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, at 1:52 PM, Brad Davis wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Martin Wilke wrote: > > > r336743 CONFSGRP should be CONFSGROUP ? > > > > > > > On 28 Jul 2018, at 1:30 AM, Charlie Li wrote: > > > > > > > > On 27/07/

Re: make distribution fails, A failure has been detected in another branch of the parallel make

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, at 1:52 PM, Brad Davis wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Martin Wilke wrote: > > r336743 CONFSGRP should be CONFSGROUP ? > > > > > On 28 Jul 2018, at 1:30 AM, Charlie Li wrote: > > > > > > On 27/07/2018 13:21, Martin Wilke wrote: > > >> I just upgraded a jail in p

Re: make distribution fails, A failure has been detected in another branch of the parallel make

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Martin Wilke wrote: > Hi, > > I just upgraded a jail in poudriere with latest head, > https://dpaste.de/bfTT/raw . portmgr@ reproduces this issue too. Antoine ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org

Re: svn commit: r336751 - head/usr.sbin/pw

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 4:22 PM Ian Lepore wrote: > This was just an error on my part, the code was wrong and I fixed it in > r336762. This time I made sure the kyua tests pass first. > > I had intended to run the kyua tests before and after re-applying my > changes to pw(8). Now that I look in my

Re: make distribution fails, A failure has been detected in another branch of the parallel make

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Martin Wilke wrote: > r336743 CONFSGRP should be CONFSGROUP ? > > > On 28 Jul 2018, at 1:30 AM, Charlie Li wrote: > > > > On 27/07/2018 13:21, Martin Wilke wrote: > >> I just upgraded a jail in poudriere with latest head, > >> https://dpaste.de/bfTT/raw

Re: make distribution fails, A failure has been detected in another branch of the parallel make

On 27/07/2018 14:08, Martin Wilke wrote: > r336743 CONFSGRP should be CONFSGROUP ? > That line doesn't seem to make any difference. Probably a jemalloc interaction? Emitted when attempting to update a -CURRENT arm64.aarch64 cross-build jail: ===> sbin/dump (installconfig) --- _CONFSINS_null ---

Re: [UEFI] Boot issues on some UEFI implementations

[[ context trimmed ]] On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM, O. Hartmann > wrote: > >> >> Just to add another success on ASRock Z77-Pro4 (800k ESP, FAT12) and >> ASRock Z77-Pro4M >> (300mb ESP, FAT32). >> >> On this firmware, I did not have

Re: make distribution fails, A failure has been detected in another branch of the parallel make

r336743 CONFSGRP should be CONFSGROUP ? > On 28 Jul 2018, at 1:30 AM, Charlie Li wrote: > > On 27/07/2018 13:21, Martin Wilke wrote: >> I just upgraded a jail in poudriere with latest head, >> https://dpaste.de/bfTT/raw . >> > I was about to inquire about this mysel

Re: [UEFI] Boot issues on some UEFI implementations

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 11:05 AM, O. Hartmann wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Am Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:59:44 +0300 > Toomas Soome schrieb: > > > > On 27 Jul 2018, at 13:02, O. Hartmann wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 08:54:48 +0300 > > > Toomas Soome wrote:

Re: make distribution fails, A failure has been detected in another branch of the parallel make

On 27/07/2018 13:21, Martin Wilke wrote: > I just upgraded a jail in poudriere with latest head, > https://dpaste.de/bfTT/raw . > I was about to inquire about this myself. Can additionally confirm this has been happening since at least r336735. -- Charlie Li Can't th

make distribution fails, A failure has been detected in another branch of the parallel make

Hi, I just upgraded a jail in poudriere with latest head, https://dpaste.de/bfTT/raw . - Martin ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any

Re: [UEFI] Boot issues on some UEFI implementations

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Fri, 27 Jul 2018 13:59:44 +0300 Toomas Soome schrieb: > > On 27 Jul 2018, at 13:02, O. Hartmann wrote: > > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 08:54:48 +0300 > > Toomas Soome wrote: > > > >>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 08:46, O. Hartmann wrote: > >>> > >>>

Re: head -r336568 and -r336570 appears to have made ci.freebsg.org's FreeBSD-head-amd64-gcc fail either than it had been (error: operand type 'struct *' is incompatible with argument 1 of

On 2018-Jul-27, at 8:52 AM, Mark Millard wrote: > On 2018-Jul-27, at 12:12 AM, Mark Millard wrote: > > On 2018-Jul-26, at 11:29 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > >> . . . >> I was looking too locally: the overall context has an outer #if >> as well that skips the section: >> >> /* >> * Keywords adde

Re: head -r336568 and -r336570 appears to have made ci.freebsg.org's FreeBSD-head-amd64-gcc fail either than it had been (error: operand type 'struct *' is incompatible with argument 1 of

On 2018-Jul-27, at 12:12 AM, Mark Millard wrote: On 2018-Jul-26, at 11:29 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > . . . > I was looking too locally: the overall context has an outer #if > as well that skips the section: > > /* > * Keywords added in C11. > */ > > #if !defined(__STDC_VERSION__) || __STDC_

Re: head -r336568 and -r336570 appears to have made ci.freebsg.org's FreeBSD-head-amd64-gcc fail either than it had been (error: operand type 'struct *' is incompatible with argument 1 of

On 7/27/18 12:12 AM, Mark Millard wrote: > I was looking too locally: the overall context has an outer #if > as well that skips the section: > > /* > * Keywords added in C11. > */ > > #if !defined(__STDC_VERSION__) || __STDC_VERSION__ < 201112L > . . . > #if !defined(__cplusplus) && !__has_ext

Re: svn commit: r336751 - head/usr.sbin/pw

On Fri, 2018-07-27 at 14:43 +, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 20:03:11 +, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > Author: ian > > Date: Thu Jul 26 20:03:11 2018 > > New Revision: 336751 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/336751 > > > > Log: > >   Re-apply r336625 which was

Re: svn commit: r336751 - head/usr.sbin/pw

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 20:03:11 +, Ian Lepore wrote: > Author: ian > Date: Thu Jul 26 20:03:11 2018 > New Revision: 336751 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/336751 > > Log: > Re-apply r336625 which was reverted with r336638, now that the underlying > pw_scan(3) has been fix

Re: [UEFI] Boot issues on some UEFI implementations

> On 27 Jul 2018, at 13:02, O. Hartmann wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 08:54:48 +0300 > Toomas Soome wrote: > >>> On 27 Jul 2018, at 08:46, O. Hartmann wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:23:43 +0300 >>> Toomas Soome wrote: >>> >>> (reply inline/at the end) >>> >>> > On 26 Jul 201

Re: [UEFI] Boot issues on some UEFI implementations

On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 08:54:48 +0300 Toomas Soome wrote: > > On 27 Jul 2018, at 08:46, O. Hartmann wrote: > > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 19:23:43 +0300 > > Toomas Soome wrote: > > > > (reply inline/at the end) > > > > > >>> On 26 Jul 2018, at 16:58, O. Hartmann wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, 25

Re: head -r336568 and -r336570 appears to have made ci.freebsg.org's FreeBSD-head-amd64-gcc fail either than it had been (error: operand type 'struct *' is incompatible with argument 1 of

On 2018-Jul-26, at 11:29 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > On 2018-Jul-26, at 9:06 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > >> On 2018-Jul-26, at 6:14 PM, Mark Millard wrote: >> >>> On 2018-Jul-26, at 11:21 AM, John Baldwin wrote: >>> On 7/26/18 10:55 AM, Mark Millard wrote: > . . . Yes, but t