severity 845753 important
thanks
On 14 December 2016 at 15:59, Andreas Tille wrote:
| Hi Christian,
|
| thanks a lot for your extensive analysis about of the stack problem. I
| admit I have no idea why this large stack is needed on those
| architectures with stable kernel. I also have no idea why everything
| went fine with tr
Hi Christian,
thanks a lot for your extensive analysis about of the stack problem. I
admit I have no idea why this large stack is needed on those
architectures with stable kernel. I also have no idea why everything
went fine with treescape version 1.10.17. Since I personally fell
totally cluele
Hi again,
On 12/14/2016 03:00 PM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> If I had to guess what was going on in the backtrace, I'd suspect
> an infinite recursion in R code, which translates to infinite
> recursion of the underlying C code. But I'm really not sure here.
Interestingly enough, my initial guess
Hi Andreas,
On 12/14/2016 11:47 AM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> On 12/14/2016 08:50 AM, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> I'm going to try an i386 build in a VM running a stable kernel
>> and see if that does indeed change things and if I can reproduce
>> the problem. Should that not be the issue though th
Hi Andreas,
On 12/14/2016 08:50 AM, Christian Seiler wrote:
> I'm going to try an i386 build in a VM running a stable kernel
> and see if that does indeed change things and if I can reproduce
> the problem. Should that not be the issue though then I really
> can't reproduce the problem - and hence
Hi Andreas,
On 12/14/2016 08:10 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:32:24AM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> On 11/02/2016 05:20 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, was going to take a shot at debugging your segfault, but I
>> simply can't reproduce this:
>> ...
>> architectures
Hi Christian,
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 12:32:24AM +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> On 11/02/2016 05:20 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> Hmm, was going to take a shot at debugging your segfault, but I
> simply can't reproduce this:
> ...
> architectures.
Unfortunately autobuilders keep on reproducing
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 06:18:56PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
>
> This reminds me of my remark in
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=847397#25
> from last Friday :)
+1
May be this workshop can be joined with "gdb for harmless Debian Med
packagers". ;-)
Kind regards
Andr
On 11/02/2016 05:20 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Warning in rgl.init(initValue, onlyNULL) :
> RGL: unable to open X11 display
> Warning: 'rgl_init' failed, running with rgl.useNULL = TRUE
> Error: segfault from C stack overflow
Hmm, was going to take a shot at debugging your segfault, but I
simply
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:23:50 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > I guess pabs meant that you're not actually using it in debian/rules.
> Urgs, thanks for opening my eyes. ;-)
:)
> Index: rules
> ===
> --- rules (Revision 23284)
>
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:47:37 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> So I did not yet considered this last resort and hope for some help from
> people who are more confident with gdb debugging than I am (Ive read
> here frequently some phrases like "10 minutes of gdb debugging" but I'm
> afraid it would tak
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:47:43AM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> [..]
> > So what exactly do you mean by "didn't add it yet" ?
>
> I guess pabs meant that you're not actually using it in debian/rules.
Urgs, thanks for opening my eyes. ;-)
So I tried:
Index: rules
=
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:30:41 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > Well, adding xvfb was the usual trick to cope with "unable to open X11
> > > display" messages and thus I added it ...
> > To me it looks like you didn't add it yet, at least not to the version
> > in Debian.
> Hmmm,
> $ apt-get sourc
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 03:50:32PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> > Well, adding xvfb was the usual trick to cope with "unable to open X11
> > display" messages and thus I added it ...
>
> To me it looks like you didn't add it yet, at least not
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Well, adding xvfb was the usual trick to cope with "unable to open X11
> display" messages and thus I added it ...
To me it looks like you didn't add it yet, at least not to the version
in Debian.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/Paul
Hi Paul,
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:07:11AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Any help would be really appreciated.
>
> Looking at the build logs, even the architectures that succeeded are
> getting the warning about X11. So that is completely unrelated and the
> issue is the segfault not the xvfb stuf
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I admit I do not only lack the hardware I'm also lacking experience to
> track down this kind of problems. I discussed the issue with upstream
> and they also do not have any clue.
>
> Any help would be really appreciated.
Looking at the bu
Hi Paul,
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 11:40:04AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
>
> > I used xauth and xvfb as Build-Depends successfully which works on most
> > architectures - but failed on these ones. Any hint how to solve this?
>
> If you don't ha
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 12:20 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I used xauth and xvfb as Build-Depends successfully which works on most
> architectures - but failed on these ones. Any hint how to solve this?
If you don't have hardware for these arches, login to one of the
porterboxen and install the bui
Hi,
the build logs[1] of these thre architeture says:
...
Warning in rgl.init(initValue, onlyNULL) :
RGL: unable to open X11 display
Warning: 'rgl_init' failed, running with rgl.useNULL = TRUE
Error: segfault from C stack overflow
...
I used xauth and xvfb as Build-Depends successfully which
21 matches
Mail list logo
