10.0-hosted tinderbox: 8.4 builds broken?

Chris Rees crees at bayofrum.net
Sun Oct 20 18:06:48 UTC 2013


On 2013-10-20 15:51, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 01:36:45PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
>> It appears that really weird SRCBASE assumptions are made throughout 
>> the
>> code.  I'll have to put a temporary hack in to just make SRCBASE 
>> appear
>> inside the chroot whatever it's set to.  Setting and unsetting SRCBASE
>> just breaks different things in weird ways, and this is the only 
>> reliable
>> fix I've found.
> 
> I've just setup another tinderbox here on 11-CURRENT and did a fresh
> checkout from CVS; I confirm that I can build packages for both 9.2 and
> 10.0-BETA just fine now, thanks!
> 
> However I've noticed another regression: doing chmod g+w 
> /usr/ports/distfiles
> in the middle of the tinder run totally confuses it: all build attempts
> after chmod fail with identical tiny log files:
> 
>   building lcms2-2.5 in directory /usr/home/danfe/tb/9.2-wip
>   make: cannot open /a/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk.
>   cd: /usr/ports/graphics/lcms2: No such file or directory
> 
> The reason for a chmod: I normally build ports from a user, and to 
> allow
> it to fetch distfiles, give write permissions to wheel group.  I also 
> do
> ./tc configDistfile -c /usr/ports/distfiles, and it always changed 
> perms
> back.  It's annoying, but I can live with it: just chmod the damn 
> directory
> again.
> 
> chmod'ing in the middle of tinder run is because I often do the runs 
> while
> installing something from ports manually at the same time.
> 
> Previously tinderbox simply complained like this in the end of the 
> build
> log:
> 
> ================================================================
> Fatal error: filesystem was touched prior to 'make install' phase
> distcache changed
>         permissions expected 0755 found 0775
> ================================================================
> 
> But this (and subsequent) packages were still built successfully.
> 
> Now chmod'ing totally screws up the whole (remaining) build.
> 
> BTW, would it be possible to prevent forcing 0755 perms?  I don't 
> really
> see any point for doing this in the first place...

This annoys me for the same reason, and eventually I gave up doing make 
fetch without sudo :P

I would very much like to fix that, so I shall try to see what I can do.

I think it may be an mtree thing.

Chris

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list