On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 18:00 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-31 11:31:35 -0400, David Malcolm <dmalc...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 11:36 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > > > On Wed, 2013-07-31 10:34:10 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbg...@lug-owl.de> > > > wrote: > [breakage with mawk] > > > > It seems this does only happen on one of the three running build > > > > clients. That one is using `mawk' instead of `gawk', what the two > > > > other builders (which are not affected) use. > > > > > > The substr() was wrong, awk starts all its indices with 1, while the > > > script used 0. gawk ignores this, mawk starts the substring at 1, but > > > counts from 0 upwards. > > > > A thousand apologies, and thanks for fixing this - I guess I owe you a > > $FAVORITE_BEVERAGE. I had only tested with gawk (with and without -c) > > and with busybox awk. I've now installed mawk and nawk on my dev box. > > That's why I'm running the build robot :) Once I've got some > time[tm], I'll spend it a small web frontend to look into the basic > information (which builds worked/failed, show build logfile, show git > log between working/non-working version.)
BTW, have you seen buildbot? i.e. http://buildbot.net/ MIT-licensed and Python-based. It's in Fedora, and I see that it's in Debian: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/buildbot (With my Python hat on, we use that for verifying every commit of CPython builds and passes the testsuite, across multiple build environments, and it's fairly easy for 3rd-parties to hook in their own build slaves into a build farm, for the less common envs). > > Are that any other awks I should be testing with - and is this > > information captured somewhere for reference? > > I don't know of any--I'm actually not a regular awk user at all. > And actually testing specific awk features isn't codified IMHO. And > while indices start at 1 (so the code was buggy in that way), it might > also be true that the implementation-defined behavior of virtually all > awk variants is to silently s/0/1/. Then, this would be an additional > glitch (not bug) in my mawk. It sounds like your awk expertise is greater than mine, though :) [...snip my testing...] > > Have I messed up my testing above, or is something else going on? What > > version of mawk are you using? > > Your testing looks fine to me. My Debian "unstable" mawk is slightly > older than yours: 1.3.3-17 Looking at mawk's CHANGES file I see this entry: 20090726 [...snip...] + modify workaround for (incorrect) scripts which use a zero-parameter for substr to ensure the overall length of the result stays the same. For example, from makewhatis: filename_no_gz = substr(filename, 0, RSTART - 1); so perhaps that's it. Thanks again. Dave