From nobody Sat Oct 28 04:34:55 2023 X-Original-To: freebsd-arm@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4SHRXK4Sgxz4yNnn for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 04:34:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gjb@freebsd.org) Received: from mail0.glenbarber.us (mail0.glenbarber.us [IPv6:2607:fc50:1:2300:1001:1001:1001:face]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail0.glenbarber.us", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA 2" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4SHRXJ5dVzz3PhH; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 04:34:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gjb@freebsd.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 2607:fc50:1:2300:1001:1001:1001:face is neither permitted nor denied by domain of gjb@freebsd.org) smtp.mailfrom=gjb@freebsd.org; dmarc=none Received: from smtpclient.apple (50.29.233.174.res-cmts.swb2.ptd.net [50.29.233.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: gjb) by mail0.glenbarber.us (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 248674F8C1; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 04:34:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail0.glenbarber.us 248674F8C1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to ARM processors List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-arm List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: Why did main's [so: 15's] new aarch64 snapshots have PINE64 (not -LTS) instead of RPI? (has -LTS too) From: Glen Barber In-Reply-To: <4C788D8C-5C2B-432A-ACF1-E2CCFC551F43@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:34:55 -0400 Cc: Mark Millard , freebsd-arm Message-Id: <2F3A346D-6AA0-4DF1-AB02-13E1344EA4CB@freebsd.org> References: <4C788D8C-5C2B-432A-ACF1-E2CCFC551F43@freebsd.org> To: Emmanuel Vadot X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (20G81) X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.60 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-0.999]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-arm@freebsd.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36236, ipnet:2607:fc50::/36, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all:c]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[gjb]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[yahoo.com,freebsd.org]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; SUBJECT_HAS_QUESTION(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4SHRXJ5dVzz3PhH X-Spamd-Bar: -- 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 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 wrot= e: >>=20 >> =EF=BB=BFOn Fri, 27 Oct 2023 18:28:22 +0000 >> Glen Barber 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 >>=20