On 24 Jul, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 22/07/2016 Don Lewis wrote:
>> On 22 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>>> I've progressed much further
>
> Thanks Damjan for the (as usual) great progress.
>
>>> Buildbots
>>> should immediately fail the build if ./bootstrap fails
>> Yes, there is no sense in co
On 24 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Don Lewis wrote:
>
>> On 22 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> > I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly,
>> > openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and
>> > openoffice-linux64-rat are now build
On 22/07/2016 Don Lewis wrote:
On 22 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
I've progressed much further
Thanks Damjan for the (as usual) great progress.
Buildbots
should immediately fail the build if ./bootstrap fails
Yes, there is no sense in continuing if bootstrap fails
Yes, sure.
5 hours is
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Don Lewis wrote:
> On 22 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> > I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly,
> > openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and
> > openoffice-linux64-rat are now building, while
> openoffice-linux32-snapshot
>
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 12:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic
wrote:
> I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly,
> openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and
> openoffice-linux64-rat are now building, while openoffice-linux32-snapshot
> is only temporarily breaking due to S
On 22 Jul, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly,
> openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and
> openoffice-linux64-rat are now building, while openoffice-linux32-snapshot
> is only temporarily breaking due to SourceForge issues. I've a
Am 07/22/2016 09:09 AM, schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly,
openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and
openoffice-linux64-rat are now building, while openoffice-linux32-snapshot
is only temporarily breaking due to SourceForge issue
On 7/22/2016 12:09 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
...
I'll experiment a lot more over the weekend, but right now I think the
problem could be that the buildbot runs VSVARS.BAT to set up the Visual
Studio environment, which (presumably) contains the evil DEVENV that break
the build and locks files wh
I've progressed much further, and openoffice-fbsd-nightly,
openoffice-linux32-nightly, openoffice-linux64-nightly, and
openoffice-linux64-rat are now building, while openoffice-linux32-snapshot
is only temporarily breaking due to SourceForge issues. I've also made some
interesting discoveries about
On 07/19/2016 11:17 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Hi
>
> I contacted Infra on HipChat and asked them to fix the buildbots I could
> find with the Perl LWP::Protocol::https problem (aoo-w7snap,
> openoffice-fbsd-nightly, and openoffice-linux32-nightly) or give me access
> to do it myself, and @po
Hi
I contacted Infra on HipChat and asked them to fix the buildbots I could
find with the Perl LWP::Protocol::https problem (aoo-w7snap,
openoffice-fbsd-nightly, and openoffice-linux32-nightly) or give me access
to do it myself, and @pono fixed at least the openoffice-linux32-nightly
bot.
The oth
Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
I've asked infra to get LWP::Protocol::https installed on all the
buildbots and they're working on it.
Thanks for debugging, this will hopefully solve it. So indeed the issue
is on the buildbots side but it was related to SourceForge now enforcing
HTTPS downloads. I ho
Steps 1-4 first delete the "source" directory, do a fresh SVN checkout
(not update) into "source", delete the "build" directory, and copy
"source" to "build". The build is then run in "build". This was the
only robust way to get it working and fix all the errors and timeouts
that were happening ear
[top posting]
hmmm...maybe I've figured out the problem?
using Linux-32 nightly as the example.
Take a look at the PWD variable in this listing:
https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux32-nightly/builds/191/steps/configure/logs/stdio
and the corresponding TARFILE_LOCATION (which is corr
On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Andrea Pescetti
wrote:
> Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> On 02/13/2016 11:45 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> it seems that buildbots are having issues with network in general
>>>
>> Do we have any additional news on the download failures specifically
>> from the buildbot
Kay Schenk wrote:
On 02/13/2016 11:45 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
it seems that buildbots are having issues with network in general
Do we have any additional news on the download failures specifically
from the buildbots to SourceForge downloads?
Why SourceForge? Look at
https://ci.apache.org/b
On 02/13/2016 11:45 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> The buildbots are all failing to download 15 dependencies every night
>> now. I think something is wrong with access to SourceForge :-(.
>
> Well, from what I see for example here
> https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoff
Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
The buildbots are all failing to download 15 dependencies every night
now. I think something is wrong with access to SourceForge :-(.
Well, from what I see for example here
https://ci.apache.org/builders/openoffice-linux64-nightly/builds/240/steps/retry%20bootstrap/logs/
On 02/12/2016 10:43 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>
> All the *nix
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
All the *nix buildbots are now green and should be building 100% reliabl
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
All the *nix buildbots are now green and should be building 100% reliabl
On 02/11/2016 09:30 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>> On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>>>
>>> All the *nix buildbots are now green and should be building 100% reliably.
>>
>> YAY!
>>
>
> I jinxed it, many bots failed in ./boot
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
> On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
>>
>> All the *nix buildbots are now green and should be building 100% reliably.
>
> YAY!
>
I jinxed it, many bots failed in ./bootstrap as they couldn't download
dependencies. We should probabl
On 02/10/2016 09:41 AM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> Hi
>
> Most of the common problems with the buildbots have been fixed:
> * The Windows buildbots were failing to determine the SVN revision
> being built, showing "UNKNOWN". This was fixed by running the "svn
> info" command under Cygwin, as the W
Hi
Most of the common problems with the buildbots have been fixed:
* The Windows buildbots were failing to determine the SVN revision
being built, showing "UNKNOWN". This was fixed by running the "svn
info" command under Cygwin, as the Windows build bots do not have the
Windows version of SVN inst
25 matches
Mail list logo
