Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 17:20:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: openoffice@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/52068: portupgrade of openoffice.org-1.0.3 stalls running installer Message-ID: <200305290020.h4T0K9Ka044261@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/52068; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, areilly@bigpond.net.au Cc: Subject: Re: ports/52068: portupgrade of openoffice.org-1.0.3 stalls running installer Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:15:06 +1000 Hi, I've just tried installing openoffice again, and it stalled again (several times), and it has finally failed in the same way that I described before. I made certain that all traces of openoffice had been removed from my system before starting the build process. The screen image that I attached to my previous report was what happened when I tried to start openoffice after the installation process finished. However, the installation process did not get to "finished" without intervention from me: In several places during the build, saxparser stalled, and I killed that process and restarted the make (without first cleaning everything up) and it continued. saxparser had been busy building what looked like i18n modules for languages/locales that I don't care about, so I was not concerned if they were corrupted. At the end, when the make install process (i.e., top-level BSD port make) said: ===> Installing for openoffice-1.0.3_2 Initializing installation program.......... *** Error code 255 (ignored) ===> Generating temporary packing list ===> Add wrapper scripts ===> Registering installation for openoffice-1.0.3_2 ===> SECURITY REPORT: That Error code 255 (ignored) was me killing the soffice.bin executable, because it had been consuming 90+% of the CPU for the whole night, and that seemed unreasonable. These problems (and the others that I'm experiencing with sawfish) seem to me to be consistent with deadlock conditions in multi-threaded applications that are making unwarrented assumptions about the thread implementation, or perhaps bugs in the thread implementation. I'm thinking of upgrading to 5.x, just to get kernel-based threads, to be more like Linux and Solaris, where these applications are presumably more tested. Is that a reasonable approach? -- Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200305290020.h4T0K9Ka044261>