Re: [releng_9 tinderbox] failure on powerpc/powerpc

(mav@, powerpc@, stable@, SuperBisquit BCCed)

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Jeremy Chadwick
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:31:15PM -0500, Super Bisquit wrote:
>> I still say that the system should be built natively on powerpc equipmen=
t.
>
> What relevancy does that have to the situation? =A0We're seeing the same
> for other architectures, not just powerpc.
>
> 4516 =A0 =A0 01/02 21:53 =A0FreeBSD Tinderbox =A0 (3.9K) [releng_9 tinder=
box] failure on i386/i386
> 4517 =A0 =A0 01/02 22:07 =A0FreeBSD Tinderbox =A0 (3.9K) [releng_9 tinder=
box] failure on ia64/ia64
> 4518 =A0 =A0 01/02 22:46 =A0FreeBSD Tinderbox =A0 (3.9K) [releng_9 tinder=
box] failure on i386/pc98
> 4519 =A0 =A0 01/03 00:11 =A0FreeBSD Tinderbox =A0 (3.9K) [releng_9 tinder=
box] failure on sparc64/sparc64
> 4520 =A0 =A0 01/03 00:15 =A0FreeBSD Tinderbox =A0 (3.9K) [releng_9 tinder=
box] failure on powerpc/powerpc
> 4522 =A0 =A0 01/03 00:57 =A0FreeBSD Tinderbox =A0 (3.9K) [releng_9 tinder=
box] failure on powerpc64/powerpc
>
> This is obviously a "botched" commit by mav@ that breaks RELENG_9 but
> not RELENG_8.
>
> In CVS I see no further commits to fix this, so I'm CC'ing mav@ here.

    This is yet another transient out-of-sync tinderbox issue that
I've seen for the past year on current@ (and I'm sure has been
happening longer). I've raised the concern to cluster@, des@, and
tinderbox@.
Thanks,
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
[e-mail] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[e-mail]"