Aleks, Am 22.01.19 um 20:50 schrieb Aleksandar Lazic: > This means that the function in haproxy works but the check should be adopted > to > match both cases, right?
At least one should investigate what exactly is happening here (the differences between the libc is a guess) and possibly file a bug for either glibc or musl. I believe what musl is doing here is correct and thus glibc must be incorrect. Consider filing a tracking bug in haproxy's issue tracker to verify where / who exactly is doing something wrong. > Do you think that in general the alpine/musl is a good idea or should I stay > on > centos as for my other images? FWIW: There already is an Alpine image for haproxy in Docker Official Images: https://github.com/docker-library/haproxy/blob/master/1.9/alpine/Dockerfile Personally I'm a Debian guy, for containers I prefer Debian based and CentOS / RHEL I don't use at all. > Any Idea for the other failed tests? No idea. Best regards Tim Düsterhus > ------------- > ########################## Starting vtest ########################## > Testing with haproxy version: 1.9.2 > # top TEST ./reg-tests/http-rules/h00002.vtc FAILED (0.859) exit=2 > # top TEST ./reg-tests/mailers/k_healthcheckmail.vtc FAILED (7.739) exit=2 > # top TEST ./reg-tests/log/b00000.vtc TIMED OUT (kill -9) > # top TEST ./reg-tests/log/b00000.vtc FAILED (10.001) signal=9 > # top TEST ./reg-tests/http-messaging/h00002.vtc FAILED (0.752) exit=2 > 4 tests failed, 0 tests skipped, 29 tests passed > ########################## Gathering results ########################## > ###### Test case: ./reg-tests/http-messaging/h00002.vtc ###### > ## test results in: > "/tmp/haregtests-2019-01-22_19-34-55.EKMMnc/vtc.3399.7739e83e" > ---- c1h2 0.0 Wrong frame type HEADERS (1) wanted WINDOW_UPDATE > ###### Test case: ./reg-tests/log/b00000.vtc ###### > ## test results in: > "/tmp/haregtests-2019-01-22_19-34-55.EKMMnc/vtc.3399.2776263d" > ###### Test case: ./reg-tests/http-rules/h00002.vtc ###### > ## test results in: > "/tmp/haregtests-2019-01-22_19-34-55.EKMMnc/vtc.3399.0900be1e" > ---- s1 0.0 EXPECT req.http.test3maskff (2001:db8:c001:c01a::ffff:10:0) == > "2001:db8:c001:c01a:0:ffff:10:0" failed > ###### Test case: ./reg-tests/mailers/k_healthcheckmail.vtc ###### > ## test results in: > "/tmp/haregtests-2019-01-22_19-34-55.EKMMnc/vtc.3399.506e5b2b" > ---- c2 7.0 EXPECT resp.http.mailsreceived (11) == "16" failed > ------------- > >> Best regards >> Tim Düsterhus > > Regards > Aleks >
