On Thursday, October 03, 2013 02:43:03 PM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:14:50PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 02:45:38 AM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > > > Hm, can you reproduce this? I see that the test parameters there are > > > questionable, but still, the test should not fail. > > > > Yes, I just reproduced it again. It doesn't seem to be a 100% failure > > rate, though, but it does fail for me most times I try to do the build. > > This is really weird. Because what the test code there does is > something like this: > > s = 24 * 60 * 60 > time_msg = time.time() - s > time_now = time.time() > assert time_message + s < time_now > > So if this fails, time_msg == time_now. But the resolution of the clock > should be good enough to prevent that from happening. What do you get > on your system if you run > > $ python2 -c 'import time; print time.time() == time.time()' > > If that should happen to print "False", it would be cool if you could > apply the attached patch and run ./test_archivemail once more. > > You can do this in the unpacked source bypassing all the packaging > wrappers, they make no difference.
I just tried running that python command line 10 times -- I got True 5 times and False 5 times. As for trying the test_archivemail patch, that will probably have to wait until this evening. -- Daniel Schepler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
