On 7/30/07, Ken Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To expand on what I posted earlier about test failures: > > Tar is repeatedly failing '26: incremental' for me, looks like a > regression. But nobody else has commented.
This time I got all passes for tar. Go figure. > The bash failure I reported was a fubar in my script (trying to > chown the test log so it was writable by the appropriate user, but > before it was created ;). But, my second run did seem to have one > failure - 'run-test' shows > > 152c152 > < 1 > --- > > 0 > 158c158 > < 1 > --- > > 0 I got those failures on a single run (using jhalfs). I'm not sure what's causing the errors, but what's failing is `test -r /dev/fd/0' and `test -r /dev/stdin' (look at tests/test.right for the output that it's diffing to above). So, I suspect this has something to do with the su to the nobody user and how su handles these devices. But the last time I thought about this it hurt my head. It may have something even more to do with how our scripts are handling the user switching. > The perl failure didn't happen on the second run, I guess it's just > another unreliable test. What was the exact perl failure? > And the vim test failure is totally impenetrable. One of the vim tests hung on me, and trying to decipher the output only resulted in garbage in the terminal. I think I might just stop running this thing. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
