dersh at alum.mit.edu
Tue Nov 6 14:31:07 UTC 2018
> On Nov 6, 2018, at 1:17 AM, Mojca Miklavec <mojca at macports.org> wrote:
> Dear Adam,
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2018 at 05:24, Adam Dershowitz wrote:
>> I’m upgrading dvisvgm from to 2.3.4_4 to 2.6.1_0. I’m on a fairly recent MacBook pro, and it has been building for 13 hours! The process is “make” and it’s taking 100% of just one CPU. Does this sound correct?
> No. Anything longer than a couple of minutes sounds wrong. The build
> is not super fast as for some lightweight ports, but it's not
> particularly heavy either.
That’s what I thought.
>> Should I just kill it and clean the port, then retry?
I tried again, and got the same result after cleaning. Any other suggestions? I’ll file a ticket, although this port doesn’t have a Maintainer, and there won’t be final log to attach, since it just hangs.
>> Also, is there a way to determine which ports are available as binaries from the buildbots?
> I agree that it would be cool to have a command to check that
> automatically, but at the moment you can check it manually on
> packages.macports.org, for example:
> However the folder for dvisvgm doesn't exist due to:
> $ port_binary_distributable.tcl -v dvisvgm
> "dvisvgm" is not distributable because its license "GPL-3+"
> conflicts with license "GPL-2" of dependency "libpaper"
> (I wasn't aware that not ever GPL-2 is compatible with GPL-3+? Doesn't
> that sound particularly strange?)
> Sometimes the binary would not be available due to the builders not
> being able to keep up with the queue fast enough, in particular when
> someone submits a patch to all gcc compilers at once :), but this
> clearly wasn't the case here.
More information about the macports-users