Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-20 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Jul 20, 2005 at 10:32:00AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > In short, OS X > 10.2 wasn't a supported platform when 7.2/7.3 came out, > and I don't want to retroactively try to make it so. All I needed to hear. I'll pull those from cuckoo's config. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-20 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Couldn't we just run the distprep actions (flex, bison) through contrib > as well? That wouldn't hurt anyone, I think. No objection here (though of course it doesn't affect the buildfarm issue). regards, tom lane --

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-20 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane wrote: > This is a considerably bigger issue for the buildfarm than it would > be for ordinary users of our distribution, since in the distro it's > only the contrib modules that you actually need to run through your > local flex. Couldn't we just run the distprep actions (flex, bison) th

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-20 Thread Tom Lane
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And 7.3 is also failing, with a different error: > ccache gcc -traditional-cpp -g -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -Wall > -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -I../../../../src/include > -I/opt/local/include -c -o printtup.o printtup.c > In file in

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-19 Thread Jim C. Nasby
And 7.3 is also failing, with a different error: ccache gcc -traditional-cpp -g -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -I../../../../src/include -I/opt/local/include -c -o printtup.o printtup.c In file included from /usr/include/machine/param.h:30,

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-19 Thread Jim C. Nasby
(trimming cc list...) On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:25:38PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > OK, I'll tweak cuckoo's config accordingly then. And now it's failing on make, at least for 7.2... ccache gcc -O3 -pipe -traditional-cpp -g -O2 -g -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -I. -I../../.

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-19 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 03:17:49PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > >Then I guess the question is... is it more valuable to have a working > >buildfarm environment for 7.2 and 7.3, or is the obnoxious failure > >better to spur someone into looking at it? :) Should this

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-19 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Jim C. Nasby wrote: Then I guess the question is... is it more valuable to have a working buildfarm environment for 7.2 and 7.3, or is the obnoxious failure better to spur someone into looking at it? :) Should this maybe be made a TODO and I'll adjust my config until someone tackles the TODO?

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-19 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:29:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 11:17:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> cuckoo [7.3, 7.2]: --enable-nls without OS support > >> > >> This looks like pilot error; but the later branches don't fail on t

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-19 Thread Tom Lane
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 11:17:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> cuckoo [7.3, 7.2]: --enable-nls without OS support >> >> This looks like pilot error; but the later branches don't fail on this >> machine, so did we change something in this area? > Should I

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-19 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 11:17:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > cuckoo [7.3, 7.2]: --enable-nls without OS support > > This looks like pilot error; but the later branches don't fail on this > machine, so did we change something in this area? Should I just stop using nls on 7.2 and 7.3 or does someone

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom Lane wrote: I believe that if we do something like TEMP_PORT = 5$(default_port) check: pg_regress ... --temp_port=$(TEMP_PORT) then the port could be overridden without any source code hacks by "gmake TEMP_PORT=nnn che

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I believe that if we do something like >> >> TEMP_PORT = 5$(default_port) >> >> check: >> pg_regress ... --temp_port=$(TEMP_PORT) >> >> then the port could be overridden without any source code hacks by >> "gmake TEMP_PORT=nnn check

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: I believe that if we do something like TEMP_PORT = 5$(default_port) check: pg_regress ... --temp_port=$(TEMP_PORT) then the port could be overridden without any source code hacks by "gmake TEMP_PORT=nnn check". Works for me. Let's do it. If I understand this r

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> potoroo [HEAD, 7.4]: lock file "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.65432.lock" already exists >> >> I'm not sure if this is a problem with a stale lock file left around >> from an old run, or if it happens because the machine is configured to >> try to bu

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-17 Thread Tom Lane
Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote: >> The short answer is that you should install flex 2.5.4, or else forget >> about testing the 7.2 branch. I don't think anyone will be very >> interested in making 7.2 work with flex 2.5.31. > Actually there are proble

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-17 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom, thanks for this. I regularly send out private emails about what appear to be local issues. Tom Lane wrote: I spent a little time today cleaning up easily-fixed problems that are causing buildfarm failures in various back branches. Hopefully that will result in a few more "green" entri

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-17 Thread Pete St. Onge
First off, thanks for looking into this, Tom, and thanks to Andrew for all the stellar work on the buildfarm, I'm glad to be a part of it. Perhaps this will help in the diagnosis of why REL7_2_STABLE fails on arbor (aka caribou). Please let me know if there is anything I can try on this side, or i

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-16 Thread Kris Jurka
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Tom Lane wrote: > The short answer is that you should install flex 2.5.4, or else forget > about testing the 7.2 branch. I don't think anyone will be very > interested in making 7.2 work with flex 2.5.31. > Actually there are problems in the 7.3 branch as well in the cube

Re: [HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-16 Thread Tom Lane
"Pete St. Onge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Perhaps this will help in the diagnosis of why REL7_2_STABLE fails on > arbor (aka caribou). Please let me know if there is anything I can try > on this side, or if there is any other info you could use. > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ flex -V > flex 2.5.31 Ah

[HACKERS] Buildfarm issues on specific machines

2005-07-16 Thread Tom Lane
I spent a little time today cleaning up easily-fixed problems that are causing buildfarm failures in various back branches. Hopefully that will result in a few more "green" entries over the new few days. While I was looking, I noticed several machines that seem to be failing because of local issu