On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:44:08AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> was heard to say: > Daniel Burrows <dburr...@debian.org> (18/01/2010): > > It looks like the build succeeded on all the release > > architectures, so I think I might downgrade this so that aptitude > > can get into testing. (the version currently there is ancient and I > > don't really want it to be held up even further by problems on one > > of the experimental archs now that it seems to work everywhere else) > > No, it didn't. kfreebsd-* are release architectures…
*boggle* All righty then. In that case, I'm going to disable the test cases on kfreebsd. It looks pretty clear to me from the transcript that the test case actually succeeded before crashing, which makes me suspect that it's the Boost test framework itself that's crashing, not aptitude code. This would not be the first time (Google for "boost unit test double free"); I'm beginning to think that this piece of Boost is not up to their usual quality, and I should consider dropping it and going back to cppunit, or just rolling my own :-/. > > > (The waitpid() issue still has to be investigated. But I see it > > > also happens on other architectures, like amd64.) > > > > The waitpid() thing turned out to be mostly spurious; I've fixed > > it in head. I can't see how it would have caused a double-free, > > though. > > I didn't say it would have, my point was just about making sure it > wasn't unnoticed. No problem. Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
