From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#32511: mariadb 10.1.35 fails to build on x86_64 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:44:53 +0200 Message-ID: <87pny7lvze.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a7pdm6t6.fsf@gnu.org> <87a7pcg83l.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40844) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ftCPd-0006By-HL for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:46:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ftCPa-0001wY-Aq for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:46:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:54409) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ftCPa-0001wK-6E for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:46:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ftCPa-0005qL-0l for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 09:46:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87a7pcg83l.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Thu, 23 Aug 2018 16:07:26 -0400") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: 32511@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Mark, Mark H Weaver skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> On berlin, mariadb 10.1.35 has one test failure (this is >> /gnu/store/a5jm2hyalyblgjnxx5x3ly4fwvfivq5m-mariadb-10.1.35.drv, as >> found in Guix commit b0cb92b2d43a2c4d5fa9b3f8c04c5732c60061e7, for >> instance): > > FWIW, after staging was merged, I also ran into a problem building > mariadb on my x86_64 GuixSD system, where I build everything locally. > It failed several times in a row, always with just 1 test failure. The > problem turned out to be that I didn't have enough free disk space. > Buried in the mountains of output, which I found quite difficult to > navigate (searching for "[ fail ]" helped), I eventually found a message > about unsufficient space. 5 GB of free space wasn't enough, but ~12 GB > was. Indeed, I=E2=80=99ve built it on berlin itself with --no-build-hook (that w= ay, I was sure there was enough space available), and it passed. The lesson here is that we might not be GC=E2=80=99ing enough on the build machines behind berlin. Any idea, Ricardo? Also, I wonder if we should report it upstream so that they arrange to skip the test when insufficient space is available. Unfortunately we don=E2=80=99t have many clues in the build log to provide them. :-/ Thoughts? Ludo=E2=80=99.