From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com (mail1.windriver.com [147.11.146.13]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B7A776FA for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 06:32:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hcb.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.41]) by mail1.windriver.com (8.15.2/8.15.1) with ESMTPS id u876Wgxp024953 (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.162.177] (128.224.162.177) by ALA-HCB.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 6 Sep 2016 23:32:42 -0700 To: Seebs , Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <1A4DD5F0-D89E-4FC1-820A-457817B4FCD3@seebs.net> From: wenzong fan Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 14:32:40 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: pseudo 1.8.1 doesn't work with docker & dumb-init X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 06:32:49 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 09/02/2016 10:10 AM, Seebs wrote: > On 1 Sep 2016, at 20:33, wenzong fan wrote: > >> No, I didn't think it's related to any specific docker version. >> >> I tested it on "Docker version 1.7.1, build 786b29d" & "Docker version >> 1.11.2, build b9f10c9". >> >> BTW, I also tested the docker build w/o dumb-init, and the build works >> ... > > Yeah, it's definitely specific in some way to docker. > > However, it doesn't appear to be 100% reproducible; I just tried a build > with your reproducer and it completed without problems. (Unless the > problems are more subtle, and don't prevent a build.) So this one's > gonna be really fun to track down. Yes, I believe it's not a 100 reproducible issue. Maybe you could run it with other builds in parallel and try it 3 times or more. It keeps high probability on my work host which a server that shared by several persons, I can always get the error from 1 ~ 3 times build. Thanks Wenzong > > -s