[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#759794: insighttoolkit4: FTBFS on amd64 with ENOSPC

[Gilles Filippini]

Kurt Roeckx a écrit , Le 30/08/2014 22:32:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 08:10:41PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 03:34:32PM +0200, Gilles Filippini wrote:
>>> insighttoolkit4 repeatedly FTBFS on amd64 [1] because of ENOSPC. A
>>> manual build on porterbox barriere.debian.org reported a need of ~44GB
>>> while it failed on buildd barber at approx 37GB of disk space.
>>>
>>> [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=insighttoolkit4&arch=amd64
>>>
>>> I really don't know how the build space could be optimized. The only
>>> solutions I can think of right now are:
>>> * force the build on a buildd with at least 44GB of free space
>>> * do a source + amd64 binary upload instead of source only upload.
>>>
>>> Note: this is blocking the ongoing hdf5 transition.
>>
>> I wonder if we should standardize on 50 GB everywhere. But then at some point
>> there needs to be a cut-off. And if the packaging could be optimized to need
>> less (i.e. avoid unnecessary disk use), that'd be splendid.
> 
> I actually don't have an amd64 buildd that has both enough RAM and
> disk space.  Brahms is the only one with enough disk space, but it
> only has 2 GB of RAM and gcc gets OOM killed there.
> 
> So if DSA can arange 50 GB of disk space on barber, it would could
> build it there.
> 
> Since it was already build on the porterbox, do you plan to upload
> that?

That's what I intend if there is no solution on the maintainer or buildd
sides.

Thanks,

_g.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20140831/246ebb9a/attachment.sig>