Hi Alex, Thanks for the response.
I have already contacted the gawk upstream maintainer regarding this issue. The discussion is currently happening via email with Arnold Robbins (gawk maintainer). Since the mailing list thread is not yet publicly archived, I'm sharing a summary of the interaction so far: - I initially submitted the patch, but it did not apply cleanly as it was sent manually. Arnold indicated that the patch failed to apply and requested the full updated randtest.sh file instead. I have since shared the complete updated randtest.sh file with him for review. At this point, I am waiting for his feedback on the proposed fix. Once I receive a response or the patch is accepted (or revised), I will follow up accordingly and share the upstream link when available. Please let me know if you would prefer that I proceed with a temporary Yocto-side workaround (such as skipping the test) while the upstream resolution is pending. Thanks, Aditya On Wed, May 27, 2026, 3:43 PM Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2026 at 07:48, Aditya G.S <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for your feedback. > > > > Originally, this patch was created on the Yocto side to handle > intermittent failures in randtest.sh by skipping the test. However, when I > submitted it via Bugzilla, I was advised to also engage with the gawk > upstream maintainers since the root cause lies within the gawk test itself. > > > > Based on upstream feedback, instead of masking the issue in Yocto (by > skipping the test), I reworked the approach and created a patch for gawk's > randtest.sh to address the underlying problem (unstable sigma leading to > false failures). The idea is that if this fix is accepted upstream, it > would resolve the issue globally, including for Yocto, without needing a > workaround. > > > > Following that, Bugzilla suggested sharing the updated gawk-side > solution here as well for visibility and review. > > > > If the upstream fix is not accepted or takes time to land, I can provide > the original Yocto-specific patch (which skips the test) as a fallback > solution. > > > > Please let me know how you would prefer to proceed. > > I'd like to see the upstream submission and upstream reaction (if any) > first, can you please provide a link to that? > > Alex >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#237658): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/237658 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/119495833/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
