Will Senn wrote:
Hi,
If this isn't the appropriate forum, please be kind and let me know.
In working through the book I came across this note when I ran the Glibc
tests in my chrooted environment:
"The elf/tst-protected1a and elf/tst-protected1a tests are known to fail
with the current stable version of binutils."
I think it ought to be written as:
The elf/tst-protected1a and elf/tst-protected1b tests are known to fail
with the current stable version of binutils.
That has been fixed.
I am basing this on the fact that I got the following errors that were
all accounted for in the notes except for ef/tst-protected1b:
FAIL: elf/tst-protected1a
FAIL: elf/tst-protected1b
FAIL: posix/tst-getaddrinfo4
FAIL: posix/tst-getaddrinfo5
Summary of test results:
4 FAIL
2307 PASS
88 XFAIL
3 XPASS
Can you confirm this to be the case? Also, are XFAIL results problematic
at this stage?
No. That means they are expected to fail.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
