> > Looks like all the PR's were not in place before the test was run on > > pointyhat. > > pointyhat doesn't have anything to do with PRs. It runs based on what > is checked into CVS when its runs start. How would it be able to do > otherwise? The ports PR count is currently 998. How is a computer > program going to know which ones are relevant or correct? > > > I deduced from the information on my system that the error was more > > likely due to a false positive for failure by the testing procedure > > rather than due to an inherent failure in the code. > > build error != install error. If you look at the two error logs, you'll > see that those are install errors (files required to be installed not > installed; files required to be deinstalled not being deinstalled). > > Ports that do not allow a clean install/deinstall cycle are broken, > whether they compile or not. > > mcl > Yes I agree BUT it is suggested that the reason that there was not a clean install/deinstall cycle was because the pointyhat test may have been done without the benefit of PR ports 141375. Here is Mathew Seaman's take on it:
"Looks like the problem would have been fixed in PR ports/141375, which modified the cups-base port to create the directory in question. As that fix was applied on the 12th at 19:39 and the last pointyhat test on cups-pdf appears to have been on the same day at 20:57 I reckon pointyhat just missed getting the fix for at least one of its test cases by about >< that much." What we need now is another test on pointyhat to see whether his speculation is accurate. It seems highly probable to me. Time will tell David _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
