Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

At Saturday 05 December 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > I've shortened the patch somewhat and adjusted the log entry > somewhat, hope you don't mind. No, it's OK. I wrote the extended description of the bug mostly to show that the patch weren't just papering over a not-understood problem. In fac

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

[ adding autoconf-patches; this is ] Proposed patch for Autoconf. OK? Thanks, Ralf commit 4f89a570c7ccb07237d4a698a4e60db507880be0 Author: Stefano Lattarini Date: Sat Dec 5 12:56:30 2009 +0100 Document Solaris/Heirloo

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

I've shortened the patch somewhat and adjusted the log entry somewhat, hope you don't mind. I've queued this for maint. (I would have queued the mode patches for maint as well, but they caused a conflict there, and I didn't figure porting was that important.) Thanks again, Ralf commit cce60a543

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

Hi Stefano, thanks for working on this more. * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 05:22:32PM CET: > I think I found the bug in heirloom-sh which was triggering the > spurious failure (it's related with `set -e', as you guessed). I also > found a simple workaround for it (caching t

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

At Sunday 11 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 05:49:20PM CEST: > > While trying to run the automake test scripts with the "Heirloom > > sh" (http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html, which should be > > quite similar to the Solaris/OpenSolari

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

At Sunday 11 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 07:06:08PM CEST: > > At Sunday 11 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > Note that while heirloom and Solaris sh are similar, they > > > aren't identical, and I wouldn't want to invest work i

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 07:06:08PM CEST: > At Sunday 11 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Note that while heirloom and Solaris sh are similar, they aren't > > identical, and I wouldn't want to invest work into fixing issues > > that are in the former only, since it'

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

At Sunday 11 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Thanks for looking into this. I prefer not to paper over any bugs > that we don't understand, though. This is surely a good policy. I sent the patch only because I easily came up with it (by five minutes of trial-and-error experimenting), b

Re: testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 05:49:20PM CEST: > While trying to run the automake test scripts with the "Heirloom sh" > (http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html, which should be quite > similar to the Solaris/OpenSolaris shell), I ran into a spurious > failure in test `vala4.tes

testsuite: fixed spurious failure in vala4.test (w.r.t. Solaris sh)

Hi everybody. While trying to run the automake test scripts with the "Heirloom sh" (http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html, which should be quite similar to the Solaris/OpenSolaris shell), I ran into a spurious failure in test `vala4.test'. I still don't understand the real cause of the failure