---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Antonio Terceiro <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> To: Thorsten Glaser <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 12:28:06 -0300 Subject: Re: Log for attempted build of ruby1.9.1_1.9.3.194-8.1 on m68k (dist=unstable)
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 01:03:23AM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > Antonio Terceiro dixit: > > >I don't like the idea of disabling tests blindly ... do you have a link > >to build logs so I can check which tests fail? > > Sure: http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/package.php?p=ruby1.9.1 > > On the regular Debian buildd logs page, the “[6]b.d-ports.o” link > also points there. right. I didn't remember that, sorry. > Note that x32 seems to have different problems; most likely, it’s > misdetected as amd64, i386 or both of them. But for the other > minority architectures, a small subset of tests fail. > > I’ve manually built ruby1.9.1 with disabled testsuite for now, > due to the libffi transition, and will porter-upload that, but > if we can cooperate trying to fix it, sure. There’s no porterbox, > but https://wiki.debian.org/Aranym/Quick shows how to set up > a VM quickly. I think fixing that kind of failure is outside of my area of expertise, but you can send a patch disabling the test suite on the architectures you are interested in and we can carry that. The only problem is that once we disable the test suite, the probability of us re-enabling them in the future is very low. The architectures in which we currently have the test suite disabled are already lost cases to me. :-( -- Antonio Terceiro <[email protected]> [ Part 2, "Digital signature" Application/PGP-SIGNATURE ] [ 205bytes. ] [ Unable to print this part. ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
