Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:39:47 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: portupgrade/ruby issue? (Stale lock file was found. Removed.) Message-ID: <447hzazzyk.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <19000.64032.525753.249900@jerusalem.litteratus.org> (Robert Huff's message of "Wed\, 17 Jun 2009 10\:13\:52 -0400") References: <4A38B47E.1070906@icyb.net.ua> <20090617133231.3883776a@sub.han.vpn.gamesnet.de> <19000.55863.785195.669767@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <44tz2f9gpb.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <19000.64032.525753.249900@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> writes: > Lowell Gilbert writes: >> >> > After recent massive ports update (I think ruby was touch and >> >> > probably portupgrade too) I started getting seemingly sporadic "Stale >> >> > lock file was found. Removed." messages. What's interesting is that >> >> > those messages are produced on stdout, not stderr. >> >> >> >> Got the same on five 7-Stable Machines. >> > >> > And on -Current from April. So, not a function of the OS version. >> > Mine happens every time I run portupgrade/portversion, even >> > when prior runs completed successfully. >> > It seems harmless, but it would be Really Nice if it were >> > fixed. >> >> Not *completely* harmless; running separate portupgrade processes >> in parallel is pretty risky at the moment... > > When was it officually cleared to do that? Last I knew it was > "do at your own risk". I don't think it was ever officially supported, but it was the purpose behind adding the lock files in the first place. I've never used it heavily, although I did put it through a fairly heavy wringer when it was under development. For "real" use, I've found it convenient when building an upgrade to a particularly large port (generally OpenOffice) while upgrading a large number of other ports as well. I don't worry about it being foolproof, because my build server has nothing fundamentally valuable on it. But at the moment, the locking seems to be completely broken, which raises it to a whole other level of risk that I can't be bothered to mess with. [Not that I generally care how long port builds take; that's computer time, not human time.] - Lowell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?447hzazzyk.fsf>