> From: Ken Moffat <[email protected]> > To: LFS Support List <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 01:58:00 +0100 (CET) > Subject: Re: [lfs-support] Unexpected test failed when building automake for > LFS-7.8. > > On Sun, Jan 03, 2016 at 11:01:32PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > Finally, my third tentative without the attached file (maybe later). > > > > My problem below: > > > > I'm following LFS-7.8 book to build my own linux system and went into an > > issue in chapter 6.45 "Automake-1.15". > > When running the (very very very long) test suite with the command "make > > -j4 check" as explained in the book, 1 test over the 2899 ended up in FAIL > > status. > > I'm providing some information about it but I'm not sure if I am sending it > > to the good person/group. > > Can you provide some help, please? > > Thank you in advance. > > > > I just wanted to let you know I'm not new to LFS. I have already built > > LFS-7.5 successfully on another machine without any particular issue. I > > also managed to go through a certain number of chapters of BLFS-7.5. > > > > I can provide the test-suite.log file, if needed. > > > > Looking back, Bruce saw that same failure (among many others) in July : > > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2015-July/070279.html > > As Bruce said, "Most of these we've seen before." On my own builds, > I have not seen that failure for 7.8, nor in the few builds I've > made since then (all x86_64). > > > The failing test occurs for the file t/subobj.sh with this output > > FAIL: t/subobj.sh > > > > At the end of the test suite output, I got the following lines: > > ============================================================================ > > Testsuite summary for GNU Automake 1.15 > > ============================================================================ > > # TOTAL: 2899 > > # PASS: 2702 > > # SKIP: 155 > > # XFAIL: 41 > > # FAIL: 1 > > # XPASS: 0 > > # ERROR: 0 > > ============================================================================ > > See ./test-suite.log > > Please report to [email protected] > > ============================================================================ > > > > The above clearly states to repo.rt the bug to the automake team but I > > wanted to know if I can get some direction from the LFS community before > > doing so. > > > > IFF the error is repeatable, and you can offer a fix, then report it. > At the moment, I guess there is some minor difference in your build. > It might be useful for you to look at whatever test-suite.log says > (my crystal ball for futurology is defunct at the moment, and trying > to guess what sort of failure was reported is not my strong point). > Perhaps there are also one or more files left over from this > particular test which may say something useful.
Ok. I deleted the whole directory and rerun this chapter again => NO FAILED TEST. I double checked in the command history. I entered each command the same way and in the same order (indeed as I was following the same directives). What I noticed is that some tests in this second run weren't processed in the same order as the previous one (only from my memory, I don't have any evidence of it). Not sure if it has any impact but, clearly, the results were different. At first, I didn't want to rerun this chapter as the test suite was long. It seemed a bit quicker this time. Thanks for suggesting to do it again. I feel safer to continue building the system (even if I thought it was harmless to continue even with this FAILED test). See you around. Cheers, Lilian > > Also, from the information I got from the logs, I feel pretty safe to > > continue building LFS despite the error. > > What do you think about it? > > Yes. > > In general, while tests which fail are annoying, they mostly are not > worth losing any sleep over. Certainly, for 1 failure on this > package I would not be concerned. > > > > > Well, I hope I would be able to get some direction. > > > > Many thanks for reading this. > > > > Cheers, > > Lilian > > ĸen > -- > This email was written using 100% recycled letters. > -- 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 -- 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
