Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > This is looking to be the best coreutils yet (nice work on getting > Darwin clean!), but it still fails to pass 'make check' on four of my > platforms...
Thanks for all the testing. > > OVERVIEW: > --------- > > sparc-sun-solaris2.10 OK > sparc-sun-solaris2.7 OK > i386-pc-solaris2.10 OK > i686-pc-linux-gnu OK (linux 2.4.21-20.ELsmp, glibc 2.3.2-95.27) > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu OK (linux 2.4.21-37.ELsmp, glibc 2.3.2-95.37) > ia64-unknown-linux-gnu OK (linux 2.4.18-e.27smp, glibc 2.2.4-32.11) > ia64-hp-hpux11.22 FAIL (sort-compress*) > hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00 OK > powerpc-ibm-aix5.1.0.0 BUILD FAILURE (lib/xstrndup) Looks like Bruno has just fixed that in gnulib. > powerpc-apple-darwin8.8.0 OK > i386-apple-darwin8.8.1 OK > mips-sgi-irix6.5 FAIL (tty-eof) I've investigated this enough to be pretty confident it is solely a problem in that particular test script, maybe in Expect.pm. > alphaev56-dec-osf4.0g FAIL What version of Perl do you have there? > nsr-tandem-nskG06 I wish :-) > > NOTE: All tests were run as non-root on an NFS volume. chgrp tests were > skipped. > > (*...ate my buffer, so I can't tell what else, if anything, failed. I > will re-run tomorrow and follow up with a more verbose report.) > > > FAILURES: > --------- > > I have *NO* c99-compatible compiler on sparc/Solaris, at least configure > is not detecting it properly. This includes the most recent one I have > available, 'cc: Sun WorkShop 6 update 2 C 5.3 2001/05/15'! It looks > suspiciously like my compiler may be broken. No problem. Just apply the c99-to-c89 patch. > sort-compress still fails with a low process limit (e.g. my OSF > system)... I thought this was fixed? It also failed on ia64/hpux. > > There is (still) a really annoying problem with the perl detection that > leads to "can't find strict.pm" problems; maybe we could check that perl This is the first I've heard of such a problem. What version of Perl is installed there? I may simply raise the required version number to one for which "use strict;" works. In the mean time, you can work around that by manually removing the "use strict" lines. > is *usable*, not just if it exists? Because of this it isn't clear how > many test failures are spurious. (It's also unfortunate that so many > tests need perl; perl isn't fun to build... so far every time I've > considered trying it I've given up.) For now I'm not even going to try > to chase the OSF test failures, this needs to be addressed first. No big deal. Very few people depend on OSF-based systems for real work. Especially 4.0, since it's so buggy. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
