On 1/22/2016 8:16 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
OK, I was going to check this out this weekend. I jsut ran a test on
8.24 today and my numbers are quite a bit different:
# TOTAL: 30
# PASS: 17
# SKIP: 13
# TOTAL: 578
# PASS: 457
# SKIP: 121
# TOTAL: 308
# PASS: 295
# SKIP: 13
Did you miss one set of tests?
Oops, it helps when I don't skip a summary (I didn't realize there were
two summary lines in the second check invocation). :-/ I guess I should
have specified that this is a post-lfs run (some BLFS is installed, no
expect, no gdb, no python). This wasn't meant for comparison (except
against itself). Just a general comment that it looks good on the
machine that could reliably reproduce the tail test failure, and that
you won't have to modify fedora patches, just concatenate the three (and
rediff if you want to kill the offsets - not necessary, I know, but I
did it anyway, .orig files bug me). I can commit the patch to repo if
you like. Won't have time for a jahlfs run for a couple of days, my "by
the book" LFS machine is being used for another task at the moment.
Anyway, here is the full test summary:
pkguser [ /LFS/Main/coreutils ]$ grep -B1 -A8 summary
coreutils-8.25-2-x86_64-check.log
============================================================================
Testsuite summary for GNU coreutils 8.25
============================================================================
# TOTAL: 30
# PASS: 23
# SKIP: 7
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL: 0
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0
--
============================================================================
Testsuite summary for GNU coreutils 8.25
============================================================================
# TOTAL: 584
# PASS: 471
# SKIP: 113
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL: 0
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0
--
============================================================================
Testsuite summary for GNU coreutils 8.25
============================================================================
# TOTAL: 308
# PASS: 296
# SKIP: 12
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL: 0
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0
I'm also curious about the warning we give in the book. Any recent
reports
of problems caused by this patch? All I could find was sort in 2009 (in
our own archives). There were 4 security issues with it back in 2013.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'problems caused by this patch'.
<note>
<para>In the past, many bugs were found in this patch. When
reporting new
bugs to Coreutils maintainers, please check first if they are
reproducible
without this patch.</para>
</note>
I don't
recall any problems for quite some time.
Same here, that's why I asked about it, referring to the note (not
warning - sorry) above.
--DJ
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
