| msg256287 - (view) |
Author: Serhiy Storchaka (serhiy.storchaka) *  |
Date: 2015-12-12 17:01 |
| Tkinter related tests are failed on 4 of 6 Windows 3.4 buildbots. http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/AMD64%20Windows7%20SP1%203.4/builds/1418/steps/test/logs/stdio http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/AMD64%20Windows10%203.4/builds/220/steps/test/logs/stdio http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/AMD64%20Windows8%203.4/builds/779/steps/test/logs/stdio http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders/AMD64%20Windows8.1%20Non-Debug%203.4/builds/333/steps/test/logs/stdio ====================================================================== ERROR: setUpModule (test.test_tcl) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\buildbot.python.org\3.4.kloth-win64\build\lib\test\test_tcl.py", line 685, in setUpModule tcl = Tcl() File "C:\buildbot.python.org\3.4.kloth-win64\build\lib\tkinter\__init__.py", line 1955, in Tcl return Tk(screenName, baseName, className, useTk) File "C:\buildbot.python.org\3.4.kloth-win64\build\lib\tkinter\__init__.py", line 1856, in __init__ self.tk = _tkinter.create(screenName, baseName, className, interactive, wantobjects, useTk, sync, use) _tkinter.TclError: Can't find a usable init.tcl in the following directories: C:/buildbot.python.org/3.4.kloth-win64/build/PCbuild/lib/tcl8.6 C:/buildbot.python.org/3.4.kloth-win64/build/PCbuild/lib/tcl8.6 C:/buildbot.python.org/3.4.kloth-win64/build/lib/tcl8.6 C:/buildbot.python.org/3.4.kloth-win64/build/PCbuild/library C:/buildbot.python.org/3.4.kloth-win64/build/library C:/buildbot.python.org/3.4.kloth-win64/build/tcl8.6.1/library C:/buildbot.python.org/3.4.kloth-win64/tcl8.6.1/library This probably means that Tcl wasn't installed properly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this a test suite defect, or there is an issue with using Tkinter on Windows? In latter case this is a release blocker. |
|
|
| msg256294 - (view) |
Author: Steve Dower (steve.dower) * |
Date: 2015-12-12 21:02 |
| I was encountering this recently trying to set up a build machine for the release, and it seems to be a build issue. Martin is building the release and apparently has it working. |
|
|
| msg256748 - (view) |
Author: Larry Hastings (larry) * |
Date: 2015-12-20 03:05 |
| I'm assuming this is a configuration issue on the buildbots. |
|
|
| msg256803 - (view) |
Author: Zachary Ware (zach.ware) * |
Date: 2015-12-21 17:04 |
| Larry: considering that 3.4 is now officially out of bugfix mode, how long do you want to keep the 3.4 buildbots around? From a selfish buildmaster configurator perspective, axing the 3.4 bots simplifies a few things :) |
|
|
| msg256826 - (view) |
Author: Larry Hastings (larry) * |
Date: 2015-12-22 05:56 |
| I hear your plea. But isn't it almost as easy to just leave it alone? 3.4 won't get many checkins from now on, so it won't actually kick off many tasks. But it would mean the "check the buildbots" step of making a release would be super easy, rather than the huge pain of requesting a manual build on the buildbots. |
|
|
| msg256844 - (view) |
Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2015-12-22 17:04 |
| Well, it clutters up the buildbot web interface with builders that aren't being used. Our historical pattern has been to deactivate the builders after a release goes into security-fix-only mode. Zach, would it be practical to just comment them out and then reactivate them when Larry does a release, or would that eliminate the benefit from your point of view? |
|
|
| msg256845 - (view) |
Author: Zachary Ware (zach.ware) * |
Date: 2015-12-22 17:25 |
| Would pretty much eliminate the benefit; there are currently a few special cases for 3.4 (particularly for the ICC builders, and the XP bot), which could go away. For the record, the secret undocumented method for running a build on all custom builders is to fill out the third-to-last set of entry boxes (the one that includes a "Repo path" box) on http://buildbot.python.org/all/builders and click the associated 'Force Build' button. It's really not that hard to request such a build, but I will grant that it's rather inconvenient. On the other hand, it wouldn't be too hard to just add the branch back without the special cases around release time for a little while, but there may be some expected failures. |
|
|
| msg256846 - (view) |
Author: R. David Murray (r.david.murray) * |
Date: 2015-12-22 17:33 |
| How about just keeping the stable set configs, minus any from that set that have special cases? Although if it is just one form submission, maybe we just need to document that in the release manager's guide? |
|
|
| msg256857 - (view) |
Author: Zachary Ware (zach.ware) * |
Date: 2015-12-22 19:58 |
| I think only keeping some builders would be more complex than any other option. Here's a patch against pep101 to document the custom builder trick. |
|
|
| msg259945 - (view) |
Author: Roundup Robot (python-dev)  |
Date: 2016-02-09 16:43 |
| New changeset 5430f4fd4ca7 by Zachary Ware in branch 'default': Issue #25848: Add section on running a build on all custom builders https://hg.python.org/devguide/rev/5430f4fd4ca7 |
|
|
| msg259946 - (view) |
Author: Zachary Ware (zach.ware) * |
Date: 2016-02-09 16:44 |
| I added the note to the devguide instead of pep101, and will be removing the 3.4 builders shortly. |
|
|