Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:34:55 -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: <2F3A346D-6AA0-4DF1-AB02-13E1344EA4CB@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C788D8C-5C2B-432A-ACF1-E2CCFC551F43@freebsd.org> References: <4C788D8C-5C2B-432A-ACF1-E2CCFC551F43@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Logboutput forwarded in a separate email. Glen Sent from my phone. Please excuse my brevity and/or typos. > On Oct 28, 2023, at 12:30 AM, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFAs I think I have made very clear in the past, no, not publicly. = =20 >=20 > The RPI build failed because of some =E2=80=9Coffset.Inc=E2=80=9D file bei= ng spammed with null bytes. >=20 > The better question imho, is why does PINE64 now succeede when it has been= failing, and if there is any direct correlation between the two. >=20 > Glen > Sent from my phone. > Please excuse my brevity and/or typos. >=20 >> On Oct 28, 2023, at 12:21 AM, Emmanuel Vadot <manu@bidouilliste.com> wrot= e: >>=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/0003= 08.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/0003= 10.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?2F3A346D-6AA0-4DF1-AB02-13E1344EA4CB>