Hi Zack,
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2022 11:35:41 -0400
From: Zack Weinberg
[...]
the filesystem timestamp resolution was incorrectly detected:
Your analysis sounds plausible to me, but it's not obvious to me how
best to fix it. ls --full-time or stat may not be available.
Maybe just
I actually wonder if your sudden "parallelism" failure could be somehow
linked to an update of bash, similar to mine ?
Good idea, but my bash hasn't changed ... I don't doubt there would be
plenty more failures with the new SHLVL change (any such change seems
like a terrible idea, but oh
Hello,
I don't know if that will help, or if that is completely unrelated, but I'm
currently stumbling into a weird issue while working on a new package
release for autoconf on Fedora: about 200 tests are now failing, all
related to aclocal checks.
My current investigation shows that it would be
Please don't top-post on this mailing list.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022, at 12:15 PM, Frederic Berat wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 6:11 PM Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
No errors on RHEL7+autoconf2.71
>>>
>>> Puzzling. Can you easily try RHEL8 or one
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 4:19 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 1:04 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On 2022-10-04 6:58 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
>>> Perhaps easier to debug: there are two targets to be run before making a
>>> release, check-no-trailing-backslash-in-recipes and
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
> No errors on RHEL7+autoconf2.71
>
> Puzzling. Can you easily try RHEL8 or one of its derivatives?
> It surprises me that that is the culprit, but it seems possible.
Unfortunately, no. CMU is mostly an Ubuntu shop these days. It's only dumb
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 1:28 PM Karl Berry wrote:
>
> No errors on RHEL7+autoconf2.71
>
> Puzzling. Can you easily try RHEL8 or one of its derivatives?
> It surprises me that that is the culprit, but it seems possible.
>
> I'm using autoconf-2.71, make-4.3, etc., compiled from source, but am
>
No errors on RHEL7+autoconf2.71
Puzzling. Can you easily try RHEL8 or one of its derivatives?
It surprises me that that is the culprit, but it seems possible.
I'm using autoconf-2.71, make-4.3, etc., compiled from source, but am
using the OS-provided coreutils. I think I'll try compiling
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, at 1:04 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On 2022-10-04 6:58 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
>> Perhaps easier to debug: there are two targets to be run before making a
>> release, check-no-trailing-backslash-in-recipes and check-cc-no-c-o,
>> to try to ensure no reversion wrt these features.
On 2022-10-04 6:58 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
With Zack's latest Python fixes, I was hoping to move towards an
Automake release, but I find myself stymied by apparently random and
unreproducible test failures. I haven't exhausted every conceivable
avenue yet, but I thought I would write in hopes that
> On 4 Oct 2022, at 23:58, Karl Berry wrote:
>
> With Zack's latest Python fixes, I was hoping to move towards an
> Automake release, but I find myself stymied by apparently random and
> unreproducible test failures. I haven't exhausted every conceivable
> avenue yet, but I thought I would
On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 15:24 -0600, Karl Berry wrote:
> What troubles me most is that there's no obvious way to debug any
> test failure involving parallelism, since they go away with serial
> execution. Any ideas about how to determine what is going wrong in
> the parallel make? Any way to make
On Wednesday 2022-10-05 23:24, Karl Berry wrote:
>
>What troubles me most is that there's no obvious way to debug any test
>failure involving parallelism, since they go away with serial execution.
>Any ideas about how to determine what is going wrong in the parallel
>make? Any way to make
What version of GNU make are you using?
I've been using make 4.3 since its release in 2020. No changes, no
prereleases. I'm afraid the problem, whatever it is, is not that simple :(.
What troubles me most is that there's no obvious way to debug any test
failure involving parallelism, since
On Wed, 2022-10-05 at 05:27 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > So what the heck?[...] >These always worked before. But now, Jim
> > gets hundreds of failures with the first
>
> Make was in the news recently, maybe that's the component to
> switch out for an earlier version?
>
> 7ad2593b Support
On Wednesday 2022-10-05 00:58, Karl Berry wrote:
>
>Nothing has changed in the tests. Nothing has changed in the automake
>infrastructure. Everything worked for me a few weeks ago. Furthermore,
>Jim ran make check with much more parallelism than my machine can
>muster, and everything succeeded
With Zack's latest Python fixes, I was hoping to move towards an
Automake release, but I find myself stymied by apparently random and
unreproducible test failures. I haven't exhausted every conceivable
avenue yet, but I thought I would write in hopes that others (Zack, past
Automake developers,
17 matches
Mail list logo
