On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 12:25:35AM -0700, Ata Bohra wrote: > > Thanks Daniel for sharing the link. I got the idea and will try to adhere to > the standards. > > One observation I want to share about "make check", with a fresh branch I see > one failure: > ----- > .....!!!!!!...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 39 FAIL > FAIL: libvirtdconftest > TEST: capabilityschematest > > . > . > . > ======================================= > 1 of 63 tests failed > Please report to [email protected] > ======================================= > make[2]: *** [check-TESTS] Error 1 > make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/abohra/libvirt_untouched/libvirt/tests' > make[1]: *** [check-am] Error 2 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/abohra/libvirt_untouched/libvirt/tests' > make: *** [check-recursive] Error 1 > > --------------------- > > The branch with my patch also reports the same result, I have a feeling that > this failure may not be because of my commit, but I will double check > everything (so far in my test bed I can see new added functions working > properly). > About the make syntax-check, I will update with the modifications.
Okay, yes sometimes there can be a local (temporary usually because we aim at fixing those too) regression like this, as long as -as you checked- they are not added by your patch set then you should feel free to send your patch(es). But investigating the issue is a good idea too. For example I have a machine where I explicitely disabled IPv6 in /etc/sysctl.conf and one of the tests is also failing predictably on that machine. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ -- libvir-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
