From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 29 20:25:55 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BDF6106566B
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:25:55 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8840515F82A;
	Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:24:16 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <503E7A6F.4080403@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:24:15 -1000
From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: paul+usenet@w6yx.stanford.edu
References: <503A724E.3050203@FreeBSD.org> <k1lrio$1r1a$1@hairball.ziemba.us>
In-Reply-To: <k1lrio$1r1a$1@hairball.ziemba.us>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "G. Paul Ziemba" <pz-freebsd-ports@ziemba.us>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: portmaster 3.13.13 real endless loop "Waiting on fetch &
	checksum.."
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:25:55 -0000

On 08/29/2012 09:46 AM, G. Paul Ziemba wrote:
> I think my original reply did not go out on 8/27, so here it is:

I didn't see it, so thanks for the resend.

> One thing I did notice was that in the failed scenario (described
> in my previous message), the tmp file named /tmp/<foo>DI-FILES<bar>
> was incomplete, but in the run today with -D, the corresponding
> tmp file was much larger (48851 bytes) and had a lot more ports listed.
> No idea if that's significant.

Yes, it is, and it confirms what I suspected the problem is.

I will need some time to address this, I'll try to get a patch out by
the end of this weekend.

Doug