Would it be wise to try something like changing that line to a build with "--explain", so we might be able to figure out why SCons thinks its out of date?
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:18 AM, William Blevins <[email protected]> wrote: > I almost wonder whether its related to the Ubuntu rpmbuild setup, since > rpmbuild is native to the RHEL (fedora, CentOS) systems, but Ubunut > (Debian, etc) use apt and dpkg. > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 3:20 AM, Dirk Bächle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> William, >> >> On 07.08.2015 03:39, William Blevins wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:23 PM, William Blevins <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> I ran that test in a loop for 10m or so and never got a failure >>> though it might only happen when you thread it with other tests? >>> >>> I see two potential issues: >>> 1. WhereIs('rpm') vs WhereIs('rpmbuild'); those two processes have >>> been split out for a very long time. >>> 2. If rpm_build_root is not unique then it could conflict with the >>> other rpmbuild tests. >>> >>> >>> I tried running all the rpm tests with -j6 in a loop; again there were >>> no errors, so I don't know for sure. Do you get a stack >>> trace or something? >>> >>> >> there is no stacktrace, the test fails because within the build an update >> is triggered, when there should be none. (see below) >> But this happens only spuriously...calling the single test seems to make >> the frequency of failure lower, while running all "rpm" tests makes it >> occur more often (can't back this up with data right now, just a first >> impression). >> >> Dirk >> >> >> ========================================================== >> >> >> dirk@ubuntu:~/workspace/scons_commit$ python runtest.py >> test/packaging/rpm >> 1/6 (16.67%) /usr/bin/python -tt test/packaging/rpm/cleanup.py >> STDOUT >> ========================================================================= >> 1,6c1,6 >> < scons\:\ Reading\ SConscript\ files\ \.\.\.\ >> < scons\:\ done\ reading\ SConscript\ files\.\ >> < scons\:\ Building\ targets\ \.\.\.\ >> < scons\:\ \`\.\'\ is\ up\ to\ date\.\ >> < scons\:\ done\ building\ targets\.\ >> < .* >> --- >> > scons: Reading SConscript files ... >> > scons: done reading SConscript files. >> > scons: Building targets ... >> > tar -zc -f foo-1.2.3.tar.gz foo-1.2.3/SConstruct foo-1.2.3/src/main.c >> foo-1.2.3/foo-1.2.3.spec >> > TAR_OPTIONS=--wildcards LC_ALL=C rpmbuild -ta --buildroot >> /tmp/testcmd.3749._NfA8E/rpm_build_root >> /tmp/testcmd.3749._NfA8E/foo-1.2.3.tar.gz >> > scons: done building targets. >> FAILED test of /home/dirk/workspace/scons_commit/src/script/scons.py >> at line 605 of >> /home/dirk/workspace/scons_commit/QMTest/TestCommon.py (_complete) >> from line 701 of >> /home/dirk/workspace/scons_commit/QMTest/TestCommon.py (run) >> from line 390 of >> /home/dirk/workspace/scons_commit/QMTest/TestSCons.py (run) >> from line 427 of >> /home/dirk/workspace/scons_commit/QMTest/TestSCons.py (up_to_date) >> from line 88 of test/packaging/rpm/cleanup.py >> 2/6 (33.33%) /usr/bin/python -tt test/packaging/rpm/explicit-target.py >> PASSED >> 3/6 (50.00%) /usr/bin/python -tt >> test/packaging/rpm/internationalization.py >> PASSED >> 4/6 (66.67%) /usr/bin/python -tt test/packaging/rpm/multipackage.py >> PASSED >> 5/6 (83.33%) /usr/bin/python -tt test/packaging/rpm/package.py >> PASSED >> 6/6 (100.00%) /usr/bin/python -tt test/packaging/rpm/tagging.py >> PASSED >> >> Failed the following test: >> test/packaging/rpm/cleanup.py >> dirk@ubuntu:~/workspace/scons_commit$ >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Scons-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev >> > >
_______________________________________________ Scons-dev mailing list [email protected] https://pairlist2.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev
