On 09/12/20 at 12:38 -0400, David Bremner wrote: > > Control: tag -1 confirmed > Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@debian.org> writes: > > > Source: notmuch > > Version: 0.31.2-3 > > Severity: serious > > Justification: FTBFS on ppc64el > > Tags: bullseye sid ftbfs > > Usertags: ftbfs-20201209 ftbfs-bullseye ftbfs-ppc64el > > > > Hi, > > > > During a rebuild of all packages in sid, your package failed to build > > on ppc64el. At the same time, it did not fail on amd64. > > > > I'm marking this bug as severity:serious since your package currently has > > ppc64el binary packages in unstable (so this is a regression). > > Thanks for the report. It looks like it is some combination of an arch > all build, and fairly high degree of parlellism in the build. I only > managed to duplicate it on plummer with -j32. For future runs it would > be great if the sbuild flags could be in the actual bug report (it took > me a while to realize you were doing sbuild -A),
Oh, sorry about this. this is the first time this cames up, I think (the sbuild command line is at the top of the log, third line) > and if possible the > amount of parallelism (parallel=whatever, or equivalent). That's a bit harder to do since I don't do anything special (dh just picks $(nproc) jobs). I did not expect that many failures related to parallelism, or else I would have mentioned the 160 "cpus" (according to /proc/cpuinfo, but that's just 2 sockets, 10 cores per socket, 8 threads per core) Lucas
