Re: Unending item build

[Stefan Schantl <stefan.schantl@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2247 bytes --]


Hi @all,

I've also stumbled over this issue from time to time.

So let's give the fix a try.

Best regards,

-Stefan
Am 8. Juni 2026 18:14:30 schrieb Adolf Belka <adolf.belka@ipfire.org>:

> Hi Michael and Matthias,
>
> On 08/06/2026 16:09, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> On 08.06.2026 16:03, Michael Tremer wrote:
>>> Hello Matthias,
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>>>> On 8 Jun 2026, at 12:58, Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to warm up an old problem...perhaps I found something like a
>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>> The original problem is rather old - it dates from 2025-01-15. It still
>>>> can be found here:
>>>> https://marc.info/?l=ipfire-development&m=173691503411708
>>>>
>>>> Once in a while I experienced the same problem like Jon - building
>>>> stopped suddenly: "./make.sh build  goes into a loop and builds an item
>>>> forever." And it doesn't matter which item. Either the counter kept
>>>> running indefinitely, or it stopped displaying anything at all.
>>>>
>>>> That was pretty annoying. No errors, nothing in the logs. After stopping
>>>> the build with CTRL-C and restarting the whole build, usually everything
>>>> ran through and worked again as if nothing had happened.
>>>>
>>>> The last message often was just "make: Leaving directory '/usr/src/lfs'"
>>>> and that was all.
>>>>
>>>> Lastly I was thinking it might have something to do with counters.
>>>> So I changed "while sleep 1" to "while sleep 2" in 'make.sh'. Nothing more.
>>>>
>>>> Since then buildings are running without stopping anymore...
>>>>
>>>> Did anyone had similar problems?
>>> Very rarely. I think I have seen it before, but I cannot reproduce it at all.
>> Yep. It happens just now and then, you never know when and why...
>
> I also very occasionally get the same problem. I have also had it when
> doing a build on the IPFire aarch64 and riscv64 builder.
>>> I am happy to remove the timer entirely because it would be sufficient to 
>>> see the build time after the package has finished building.
>> +1. You got my vote. The simpler, the better.
>>> Would anyone be opposed to that?
>> No. ;-)
>
> I have no problems with that.
>
> Regards,
>
> Adolf.
>> Best
>> Matthias
>
> --
> Sent from my laptop


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5302 bytes --]