Hello Robert, On Feb 11, 2025, at 13:13, Robert Clausecker <f...@fuz.su> wrote:
> Am Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 12:01:10PM -0800 schrieb Mark Millard: >> It did finish --after 39:49:02 . >> >> As long as the O(n²) build-time problem exists: Is the >> package's build worth the delays to most other package >> builds that are done on on any specific builder machine? >> >> ampere1 cycles through building and distributing: >> 141arm64-quarterly >> 141releng-armv7-quarterly >> 1341arm64-quarterly >> 134releng-armv7-quarterly >> >> ampere3 is similar (default here is a.k.a. latest): >> 141arm64-default >> 141releng-armv7-default >> 1341arm64-default >> 134releng-armv7-default >> >> If the armv7's all have that time problem, the >> problem looks to adds days to the time to complete >> a cycle of 4 types of builds. >> >>> The reason why you see this only now is that I have recently pushed a patch >>> to fix math/octave on armv7; previously it didn't build.= >> >> Should the package be considered broken for armv7 until >> it is fixed to build in a normal time frame instead of >> an O(n²) tiem frame, just because it takes too long as >> stands? > > Yes, please mark it as broken. It's only a metaport, so no > functionality is lost by not providing it. > The underlying problem should be fixed. I'm not a committer --or even a maintainer of anything. So I can not be the one to make the actual "mark it as broken" commit. Are you looking for a bugzilla submittal with a patch to add something like: BROKEN_armv7= armv7 builds are spending, e.g., 39:49:02 in an N-squared-process. before the USES= line in the Makefile? === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
