From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TgcC8-0001L3-79 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 15:12:56 +0100 Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Dec 2012 05:58:29 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,230,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="259918112" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.123.5]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 06 Dec 2012 05:58:28 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Saul Wold , Mark Hatle Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:58:27 +0000 Message-ID: <3221241.HMtLP26WOa@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.9.3 (Linux/3.5.0-19-generic; KDE/4.9.3; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <50C0286B.60406@linux.intel.com> References: <50C0286B.60406@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Integrate Smart for RPM image generation X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:12:56 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Wednesday 05 December 2012 21:08:59 Saul Wold wrote: > On 12/04/2012 11:49 AM, Mark Hatle wrote: > > The following patch set relies on the previous "Misc fixes" sent out > > earlier today. > > > > The set replaces the existing rootfs generation with one based on Smart. > > The work was tested using buildhistory over a wide range of image types: > > core-image-minimal > > core-image-base > > core-image-basic > > core-image-lsb > > core-image-sato > > build-appliance > > Did you try with the DISTRO = poky-lsb when doing the lsb build? There > are failures across the board with the LSB builds I just did with core-image-lsb, and apart from the pkgconfig issue which I have worked around, it built fine - I did not see this error. The only thing I can think of is that it has something to do with these running concurrently, although I'm not sure how that could be a problem especially as we have locking for the rpm backend. I'm now running a concurrent build of all of the four images that failed, we'll see if I get the same failure or not fairly soon. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre