Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:30:19 -0400 From: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> To: Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> Cc: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com>, freebsd-arm <freebsd-arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why did main's [so: 15's] new aarch64 snapshots have PINE64 (not -LTS) instead of RPI? (has -LTS too) Message-ID: <4C788D8C-5C2B-432A-ACF1-E2CCFC551F43@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20231028062114.2e2d4fd1476ad666bebb50ed@bidouilliste.com> References: <20231028062114.2e2d4fd1476ad666bebb50ed@bidouilliste.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As I think I have made very clear in the past, no, not publicly. =20 The RPI build failed because of some =E2=80=9Coffset.Inc=E2=80=9D file being= spammed with null bytes. The better question imho, is why does PINE64 now succeede when it has been f= ailing, and if there is any direct correlation between the two. Glen Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity and/or typos. > On Oct 28, 2023, at 12:21 AM, Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> wrote= : >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn Fri, 27 Oct 2023 18:28:22 +0000 > Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 >>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:35:39PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: >>> https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-snapshots/2023-October/000308= .html >>> [New FreeBSD snapshots available: main (20231019 fb7140b1f928)] >>>=20 >>> reported (note "RPI"): >>>=20 >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 GENERIC >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 RPI >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINE64-LTS >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINEBOOK >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCK64 >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCKPRO64 >>> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERIC >>> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERICSD >>>=20 >>> https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-snapshots/2023-October/000310= .html >>> [New FreeBSD snapshots available: main (20231026 d3a36e4b7459) ] >>>=20 >>> reported (note "PINE64" without "-LTS" and lack of "RPI"): >>>=20 >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 GENERIC >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINE64 >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINE64-LTS >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 PINEBOOK >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCK64 >>> o 15.0-CURRENT aarch64 ROCKPRO64 >>> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERIC >>> o 15.0-CURRENT riscv64 GENERICSD >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >> Last week, RPI succeeded while PINE64 failed. This week, the opposite >> occurred. >>=20 >> Glen >>=20 >=20 > Any logs ? >=20 > --=20 > Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> <manu@freebsd.org> >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C788D8C-5C2B-432A-ACF1-E2CCFC551F43>