Opened 17 years ago

Closed 17 years ago

#2090 closed enhancement (fixed)

Tar-1.19

Reported by: Matthew Burgess Owned by: lfs-book@…
Priority: normal Milestone: 7.0
Component: Book Version: SVN
Severity: normal Keywords:
Cc:

Description

Change History (6)

comment:1 by Matthew Burgess, 17 years ago

This fails test 26:

26: incremental                                     FAILED (incremental.at:26)

If someone can reproduce this, that'd be great, then I'll look into reporting it upstream. Note that this was done using gcc-4.2.2 and glibc-2.7. Test results against other toolchains would be useful too though. Tar-1.18 passes with the same toolchain though, so this certainly looks like a regression.

comment:2 by ken@…, 17 years ago

Failing test 26 is not exactly new. FWIW I saw this in the build up to 6.3. See e.g. http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/msg10267.html where Greg pointed out this and test 29 commonly failed.

comment:3 by Matthew Burgess, 17 years ago

OK, given that they intermittently occur and reports appear to have fallen on deaf ears, I think we should change the test suite instructions to be similar to Glibc/GCC's. 'make check' becomes 'make -k check' then we advise the reader to check the results of the tests noting that tests 26 and 29 are known to fail intermittently.

Sorry for not acting on your previous report of this, Ken.

comment:4 by ken@…, 17 years ago

I didn't think it needed any action. I think it still runs all the tests without '-k' (or did it stop after failing 26?), and you get an error indication with or without '-k'. We don't ostensibly support automation/scripts, so unless it needs something for jhalfs I think the current commands are ok.

Wouldn't do any harm to mention possible failures, I suppose. (I'd overlooked that earlier).

in reply to:  4 comment:5 by Matthew Burgess, 17 years ago

Replying to ken@linuxfromscratch.org:

I didn't think it needed any action. I think it still runs all the tests without '-k' (or did it stop after failing 26?), and you get an error indication with or without '-k'. We don't ostensibly support automation/scripts, so unless it needs something for jhalfs I think the current commands are ok.

Yeah, the whole reason I noticed this was that it interrupted my jhalfs build. Not sure whether '-k' makes a difference to the exit code of the testsuite or not. If it doesn't, I guess we'll have to use a 'make check
true' type construct to support jhalfs.

Wouldn't do any harm to mention possible failures, I suppose. (I'd overlooked that earlier).

Yeah, they certainly caught me out. Having never had a single failure in the tar testsuite, despite them occuring pretty widely for different folks, I thought they were new.

comment:6 by Matthew Burgess, 17 years ago

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

Fixed in r8418.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.