On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 03:50:53PM -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On 7/30/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Tar is repeatedly failing '26: incremental' for me, looks like a > > regression. But nobody else has commented. > > If you have any idea how to narrow this down, that'd be great. I have > hit this before myself, and it seems like a race condition, but I > can't say for sure. I haven't run the full range of tests on all the > packages in a while. At worst, we can add a note that this test fails > sometimes. > Greg's reply pointed out that both 26 and 29 have been seen to sometimes fail. He suggested it might need 'sleep' added to the testsuite (in which case, yet another broken testsuite).
I'm ok with adding "tests 26 and 29 sometimes fail", but then I'm equally ok with adding a more general "occasional failures in the testsuites are probably nothing to worry about". The trouble with that get-out is its use of language: to me, the text about the ignored failure in glibc is clear, but people have problems with it. Adding a comment that says "probably ok" will be a pain when every other builder starts asking "do I need to worry?" The real problem is that test failures _sometimes_ indicate a problem. Mostly (talking generally, not x86-specific) they seem to indicate that the testsuite is not perfect. ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
