On 20/08/10 at 19:41 +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > found 584344 2.22-12 > thanks > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:21:13PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 09:45:42PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 12:01:36PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > Source: speedy-cgi-perl > > > > > Version: 2.22-11 > > > > > Severity: serious > > > > > Tags: squeeze sid > > > > > User: debian...@lists.debian.org > > > > > Usertags: qa-ftbfs-20100602 qa-ftbfs > > > > > > > > > Justification: FTBFS on amd64 > > > > > > Test Summary Report > > > > > > ------------------- > > > > > > t/detach.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 1) > > > > > > Failed test: 2 > > > > > My best guess is that it's somehow related to bigger pipe buffers on > > > systems with more memory than mine or something like that, but I can't > > > see the problem in the code no matter how much I glare at it. > > > > Close enough, the thing that matters here is the socket write buffer size. > > > I suppose the most correct thing to do here would be to check the size > > of the socket write buffer with SO_SNDBUF (see socket(7)) and set the > > data and frontend buffer size accordingly. However, I think I'll take > > the lazy route at least for squeeze and use my earlier patch that just > > hardcodes bigger numbers. > > It turns out that this made the first test in detach.t fail on "smaller" > (?) systems, at least armel and mipsel. I've therefore implemented a > better fix that adjusts the test according to the socket write buffer > size. > > I'm attaching the new patch and reopening the bug. > > Lucas, could you please set me up for access to a test system again > so that I could confirm that this works there too?
Yes, when would be a good time for you? L. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
