Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
On 3/18/07, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/18/07 11:58 CST: Sometimes developers will update their program and not update their test suites and have some tests become invalid. I wonder if this is the case here. Not sure. But what I'm looking for is someone to verify that the tests fail for them as well. I can't determine if it is the package, or my installation of it. Can't say that I run the testsuite myself usually. However, I do read the cairo list archives pretty often. The testsuite is a very well exercised part of their development process and I think it should pass all tests or have XFAILs for known failures. Here's a recent message indicating that: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/2007-February/009649.html I don't know how much effort you want to put into this. I just thought I toss in my understanding of the upstream situation. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Dan Nicholson wrote: On 3/18/07, Randy McMurchy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/18/07 11:58 CST: Sometimes developers will update their program and not update their test suites and have some tests become invalid. I wonder if this is the case here. Not sure. But what I'm looking for is someone to verify that the tests fail for them as well. I can't determine if it is the package, or my installation of it. Can't say that I run the testsuite myself usually. However, I do read the cairo list archives pretty often. The testsuite is a very well exercised part of their development process and I think it should pass all tests or have XFAILs for known failures. Here's a recent message indicating that: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/2007-February/009649.html I don't know how much effort you want to put into this. I just thought I toss in my understanding of the upstream situation. If their tests don't fail and ours do, it would be good to know why. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
On 3/19/07, Bruce Dubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dan Nicholson wrote: Can't say that I run the testsuite myself usually. However, I do read the cairo list archives pretty often. The testsuite is a very well exercised part of their development process and I think it should pass all tests or have XFAILs for known failures. Here's a recent message indicating that: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/2007-February/009649.html I don't know how much effort you want to put into this. I just thought I toss in my understanding of the upstream situation. If their tests don't fail and ours do, it would be good to know why. Absolutely, but I don't know. One thing I remembered is that you may not want to override the default cairo CFLAGS. By default, they add -fno-strict-aliasing, but you lose this if the CFLAGS are set in the environment. This came up recently on the cairo list with one of the Mandriva developers. http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/2007-March/009979.html This is probably a bug in their packaging, but I'd be interested to know if the test failures are associated with this. Actually, this looks like it's fixed to pass -fno-strict-aliasing correctly, but using the default CFLAGS would still be interesting. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 03/19/07 17:18 CST: This is probably a bug in their packaging, but I'd be interested to know if the test failures are associated with this. Actually, this looks like it's fixed to pass -fno-strict-aliasing correctly, but using the default CFLAGS would still be interesting. I don't set CFLAGS and I do encounter the errors. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 17:23:00 up 10 days, 15:22, 1 user, load average: 0.33, 0.21, 0.20 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, I'd like to update the book with the current GLib, cairo, GTK+, pango and ATK stack, but I'm sort of stuck with what to do about cairo. The test suite does not behave properly. This is new to this version. Up till now I've always had cairo pass all the tests. First, I had the Glitz backend activated, and I didn't run the tests from a GL equipped xterm and the test actually stops and never finishes after crashing. Running the test on the console in X mode, ran okay, but I didn't have Ghostscript installed, so it bombs almost *every* test because it cannot find a gs executable. Then after installing gs, there are still 18 out of the 121 tests that fail, most of them related to pixel differences in png images. Any suggestions? Anyone else seeing these test failures? (note that I deactivated the experimental backends, glitz and XCB, and the tests still failed.) I don't run the tests, but cairo-1.4.0 (without glitz) is solid on my box. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
TheOldFellow wrote: Randy McMurchy wrote: Hi all, I'd like to update the book with the current GLib, cairo, GTK+, pango and ATK stack, but I'm sort of stuck with what to do about cairo. The test suite does not behave properly. This is new to this version. Up till now I've always had cairo pass all the tests. First, I had the Glitz backend activated, and I didn't run the tests from a GL equipped xterm and the test actually stops and never finishes after crashing. Running the test on the console in X mode, ran okay, but I didn't have Ghostscript installed, so it bombs almost *every* test because it cannot find a gs executable. Then after installing gs, there are still 18 out of the 121 tests that fail, most of them related to pixel differences in png images. Any suggestions? Anyone else seeing these test failures? (note that I deactivated the experimental backends, glitz and XCB, and the tests still failed.) I don't run the tests, but cairo-1.4.0 (without glitz) is solid on my box. Sometimes developers will update their program and not update their test suites and have some tests become invalid. I wonder if this is the case here. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/18/07 11:58 CST: Sometimes developers will update their program and not update their test suites and have some tests become invalid. I wonder if this is the case here. Not sure. But what I'm looking for is someone to verify that the tests fail for them as well. I can't determine if it is the package, or my installation of it. Note that the rest of the GTK+ and friends stack behave properly after I installed cairo (other than Pango fails a test if libthai is installed). Additionally, GTK+ now links to CUPS libraries if they are found, though I didn't have CUPS installed when I installed GTK+. If anyone can confirm any issues with CUPS linking to GTK+, I would appreciate it. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 12:13:00 up 9 days, 10:12, 1 user, load average: 0.11, 0.03, 0.01 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 03/18/07 12:16 CST: Not sure. But what I'm looking for is someone to verify that the tests fail for them as well. I can't determine if it is the package, or my installation of it. I forgot about David's message that says the tests fail for him as well. Sorry about that David. I suppose two instances show that it isn't me. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 12:17:01 up 9 days, 10:16, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.10, 0.03 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/18/07 12:48 CST: 82 of 121 tests failed Do you have a 'gs' binary installed in your path? I had about that many fail when there was no 'gs' in my path. Installing Ghostscript cured about 60 of the tests. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 12:52:00 up 9 days, 10:51, 1 user, load average: 0.04, 0.05, 0.01 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Randy McMurchy wrote: Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/18/07 12:48 CST: 82 of 121 tests failed Do you have a 'gs' binary installed in your path? I had about that many fail when there was no 'gs' in my path. Installing Ghostscript cured about 60 of the tests. No, I don't have gs installed. Do you want me to do that and retest? If so, which gs? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/18/07 13:07 CST: No, I don't have gs installed. Do you want me to do that and retest? If you want to, and that could confirm the failures. You probably want to ensure that you have GLib-2.12.11 installed as well, as that is what the book will have in just a few minutes. If so, which gs? I'd bet it doesn't matter, the tests just seem to use gs for pixel arrangement and numbers (formatting). 'gs' is not used for actual rendering on an X window. I always install ESPGS as it provides CUPS support and seems to be better maintained. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 13:43:00 up 9 days, 11:42, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.00, 0.00 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
On Sunday 18 March 2007 18:47, Randy McMurchy wrote: I always install ESPGS as it provides CUPS support and seems to be better maintained. That's what I assumed, from the frequency of releases. However, I'm not certain that it's going to have any more releases at all after reading http://www.cups.org/espgs/articles.php?L449 Does anyone know anything more about the status of ESPGS? Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Matthew Burgess wrote: On Sunday 18 March 2007 18:47, Randy McMurchy wrote: I always install ESPGS as it provides CUPS support and seems to be better maintained. That's what I assumed, from the frequency of releases. However, I'm not certain that it's going to have any more releases at all after reading http://www.cups.org/espgs/articles.php?L449 Does anyone know anything more about the status of ESPGS? From the site: In 2006, Artifex and the ESP Ghostscript developers agreed to merge the changes from ESP Ghostscript into GPL Ghostscript, and to collaborate on a single version of Ghostscript for all platforms. All development on ESP Ghostscript has ended with the 8.15.4 release. See http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/doc/GPL/index.htm I;d have to take a look at the contents of GPL Ghostscript 8.54, but if it supports CUPS, we should probably use that in BLFS as the only version if Ghostscript. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 03/18/07 13:57 CST: That's what I assumed, from the frequency of releases. However, I'm not certain that it's going to have any more releases at all after reading http://www.cups.org/espgs/articles.php?L449 Does anyone know anything more about the status of ESPGS? Yes. Now that the AFPL is done away with in the other version of Ghostscript (where ESPGS was forked from in the first place), and they've moved to a GPL license, it has been determined that all future work will be in the 'GPL' tree. Here is another message from the ESPGS website: In 2006, Artifex and the ESP Ghostscript developers agreed to merge the changes from ESP Ghostscript into GPL Ghostscript, and to collaborate on a single version of Ghostscript for all platforms. All development on ESP Ghostscript has ended with the 8.15.4 release. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 14:05:00 up 9 days, 12:04, 1 user, load average: 0.18, 0.31, 0.20 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: cairo-1.4.0 test suite
Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 03/18/07 14:06 CST: I;d have to take a look at the contents of GPL Ghostscript 8.54, but if it supports CUPS, we should probably use that in BLFS as the only version if Ghostscript. Eventually, yes. And Ghostscript is now at 8.56, with this release just released a few days ago. We'd have to look at the ChangeLog and see if all the ESP changes were put into the tree. If so, and as you say CUPS support is now native, there would be reason to keep ESP Ghostscript. -- Randy rmlscsi: [bogomips 1003.28] [GNU ld version 2.16.1] [gcc (GCC) 4.0.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.6] [Linux 2.6.14.3 i686] 14:09:01 up 9 days, 12:08, 1 user, load average: 0.30, 0.26, 0.19 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
