[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       autoconf-bug
Subject:    Re: [GNU Autoconf 2.68] testsuite: 205 failed
From:       Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 () freenet ! de>
Date:       2010-09-23 12:36:30
Message-ID: 4C9B49CE.6070605 () freenet ! de
[Download RAW message or body]

On 09/23/2010 02:11 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 10:31 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> ...
>> 205: parallel autotest and signal handling FAILED (autotest.at:1617)
>> ...
>>
>> * Fedora 12/13/14 i386/x86_64
>> * RHEL6 beta2 i386/x86_64
>
> Odd, because I specifically tested under these two, and it passed for
> me. Is there an environmental difference between our two setups,

Likely - As with previous reports I sent on 2.67, I am actually building 
autoconf rpms in mock chroots on Fedora 13/x86_64.

> such as
> an inherited ignored SIGPIPE setup in the test environment? Remember,
> POSIX states that a shell that inherits ignored SIGPIPE at startup
> cannot undo that effect (which is rather annoying).
>
>> From what I can gather, it's the "killer test" which fails:
>
> Not quite, it's the point at which the testsuite.log shows a diff in
> expected vs. actual output. The killer test is supposed to fail, and the
> real failure is occurring later in the log. But Ralf Wildenhues'
> analysis is correct - the test is making a bad assumption about what
> scenarios will cause a SIGPIPE, and if SIGPIPE doesn't actually happen,
> then the test gets confused and fails.

OK.

Ralf




[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]