On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 8:32 AM, David Evans wrote:
>
> If my theory is
> correct it doesn't seem appropriate to add code to py-cython that is only
> needed for one build.
You could just as well add code, wait for the build on the buildbot to
finish and remove the code again.
It's a quick-and-dir
On 12/14/14 9:56 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
On 2014-12-15 16:25 , David Evans wrote:
On 12/14/14 8:57 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
On 2014-12-15 15:46 , David Evans wrote:
I've seen a number of instances recently on the buildbots where a port
fails on activation because of extraneous files left in the i
On 2014-12-15 16:25 , David Evans wrote:
> On 12/14/14 8:57 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
>> On 2014-12-15 15:46 , David Evans wrote:
>>> I've seen a number of instances recently on the buildbots where a port
>>> fails on activation because of extraneous files left in the installation
>>> tree by some pre
On 12/14/14 8:57 PM, Joshua Root wrote:
On 2014-12-15 15:46 , David Evans wrote:
I've seen a number of instances recently on the buildbots where a port
fails on activation because of extraneous files left in the installation
tree by some previous failure.
My most recent example is py27-cython o
On 2014-12-15 15:46 , David Evans wrote:
> I've seen a number of instances recently on the buildbots where a port
> fails on activation because of extraneous files left in the installation
> tree by some previous failure.
>
> My most recent example is py27-cython on buildports-snowleopard-x86_64:
I've seen a number of instances recently on the buildbots where a port
fails on activation because of extraneous files left in the installation
tree by some previous failure.
My most recent example is py27-cython on buildports-snowleopard-x86_64:
Error: org.macports.activate for port py27-cyth
