On Monday 18 July 2005 03:06am, Joerg Bruehe wrote: > Hello! > > Peregrine wrote: > > [[...]] > > > > While trying to build RPMs for 5.0.9-beta, I have run into this error: > > > > [[...]] > > Starting Tests > > > > TEST RESULT > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > alias [ pass ] > > Well, if you got this far, your build process has succeeded, and your > binaries are working. Fine!
You are correct. The compile was successfully completed, as in there were no compile errors. However, I am building RPMs; that was the "build process" that I was referring to. Sorry to have been confusing. > Which platform are you using, or which specific features are you > combining, so that you build by yourself? Fedora, RHEL, CentOS & SUSE distributions for i386 & AMD64. Now that these distributions have sufficiently current packages of 4.1 available, I no longer build those; just 5.0 (as close to the way those distributions would probably build them) for development and testing. > > [[...]] > > mysql [ pass ] > > mysql_client_test [ fail ] > > > > Errors are > > (from > > /home/lamontp/rpmbuild/BUILD/mysql-5.0.9-beta/mysql-test/var/log/mysqltes > >t-time) : mysql_client_test.c:3811: check failed: 'rc == 0' > > /home/lamontp/rpmbuild/BUILD/mysql-5.0.9-beta/client/.libs/mysqltest: At > > line 10: command "$MYSQL_CLIENT_TEST" failed > > (the last lines may be the most important ones) > > > > Aborting: mysql_client_test failed in default mode. To continue, re-run > > with '--force'. > > ---- > > Examining the code for the test file (mysql_client_test.c) the test looks > > good. Also, the test database table being used in this particular test > > looks alright to me, too. > > Yes, both look good probably. > You just ran into one reason why version 5.0 is still in "beta" state. > It is a known bug, MySQL development is working on this. Is there any better reference to the bug available (bug ID) so that I could follow it? I could also try contribute a fix, in that case. > I propose to run "make test-force", so that this failing test does not > prevent the subsequent tests from being taken. I will do that for testing purposes. Currently, I build 5.0.x for development and testing, not for production, so I will need to build a set of RPMs without test-force to continue distributing for those purposes. > > There are other tests that were "skipped". [[...]] > > Not needed. Typically, tests are skipped if they are declared to test a > component which is not included in the binary being tested. > (Example: NDB is only included in "max" builds, so for "standard" all > "ndb_*" tests are skipped.) Which is what I expected. Thanks for the confirmation. I only offered or the sake of completeness. -- Lamont R. Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Founder [http://blog.openbrainstem.net/peregrine/] OpenBrainstem - Intelligent Open Source Software Engineering
pgpw0xu6Dcx5A.pgp
Description: PGP signature
