Re: Tar tests (was Re: Is 6.3 ready for release?)
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 08:07:47AM +1000, Greg Schafer wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > Tar is repeatedly failing '26: incremental' for me, looks like a > > regression. But nobody else has commented. > > I see this intermittently. I also see 29 failing intermittently too which > I reported upstream to no response: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-tar/2007-07/msg00032.html > > In fact, the upstream list has various reports of both 26 and 29 failing. > Because they appear to be intermittent failures, I believe they are > probably timing related. It's possible these tests are missing sleep > statements in key areas (there are many sleep statements within the tar > testsuite). > > Regards > Greg Thanks, Greg. One less thing to worry about for a release. Maybe I was just lucky when running tests before 6.3 and on other architectures (actually, the one I definitely remember passing was on ppc - that box is so slow it probably doesn't need any added 'sleep'). 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
Re: Tar tests (was Re: Is 6.3 ready for release?)
On 7/30/07, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > Tar is repeatedly failing '26: incremental' for me, looks like a > > regression. But nobody else has commented. > > I see this intermittently. I also see 29 failing intermittently too which > I reported upstream to no response: Yeah, I've been seeing "incremental" as well as "sorted" failing on and off over the past couple releases (I think "sorted" might be fixed now). > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-tar/2007-07/msg00032.html > > In fact, the upstream list has various reports of both 26 and 29 failing. > Because they appear to be intermittent failures, I believe they are > probably timing related. It's possible these tests are missing sleep > statements in key areas (there are many sleep statements within the tar > testsuite). Seems pretty likely. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Tar tests (was Re: Is 6.3 ready for release?)
Ken Moffat wrote: > Tar is repeatedly failing '26: incremental' for me, looks like a > regression. But nobody else has commented. I see this intermittently. I also see 29 failing intermittently too which I reported upstream to no response: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-tar/2007-07/msg00032.html In fact, the upstream list has various reports of both 26 and 29 failing. Because they appear to be intermittent failures, I believe they are probably timing related. It's possible these tests are missing sleep statements in key areas (there are many sleep statements within the tar testsuite). Regards Greg -- http://www.diy-linux.org/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
