Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:40:35 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports@coreland.ath.cx Cc: stable@freebsd.org, Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu@freebsd.org>, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [ HEADS UP ] Ports unstable for the next 10 days Message-ID: <h2o7d6fde3d1004191740xb8ee9e34mbc19acadc4ecb8d3@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20100419233858.GC43612@logik.internal.network> References: <20100328163828.1f34e0e7@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20100420021420.22e22136@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20100419233858.GC43612@logik.internal.network>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 4:38 PM, <freebsd-ports@coreland.ath.cx> wrote:
> On 2010-04-20 02:14:20, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
>> A switch to use newer GMP version has been committed.
>>
>> I'm still investigating lang/gnat-gcc44.
>
> As far as I know, the gnat-gcc44 bootstrap binaries will be
> fine as they're bundled with the libgmp library that was used
> to build them. Whether gcc builds with the newer libgmp remains
> to be seen...
As discussed in the QAT emails, it might be related to ccache use
on the build cluster graciously donated by ixSystems, and the fact
that the cached data is inconsistently distributed across the cluster.
I've provided some tips for itetcu to work around this on IRC
(basically disable ccache), but it kind of sucks when you run into
periodic issues with toolchain variance like this, s.t. building with
NO_CACHE=yes is a necessary evil to work through end-to-end build
functional issues. Someone else who knows more about ccache could
provide a better explanation of what's going on because my ranting
about this would only be me talking out of my rear :).
More info about ccache with FreeBSD can be found here:
http://forums.freebsd.org/archive/index.php/t-174.html
Cheers,
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?h2o7d6fde3d1004191740xb8ee9e34mbc19acadc4ecb8d3>