Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-09 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Tim Tassonis wrote: On 02/09/2018 07:04 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:55:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Pierre Labastie wrote: On 08/02/2018 05:21, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: At the moment we note that posix/test-getaddrinfo4 and posix/testg

Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-09 Thread Tim Tassonis
On 02/09/2018 07:04 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:55:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Pierre Labastie wrote: On 08/02/2018 05:21, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: At the moment we note that posix/test-getaddrinfo4 and posix/testgetaddrinfo5 may fail

Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-09 Thread Tim Tassonis
On 02/09/2018 10:59 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 03:28:47PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:04:11PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-ttyname This is what I got on my system (i7-5820K, Haswell E): FAI

Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-09 Thread Ken Moffat
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 03:28:47PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:04:11PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > > UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-ttyname > > > > > > This is what I got on my system (i7-5820K, Haswell E): > > > > > > FAIL: misc

Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-09 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Ken Moffat wrote: On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:04:11PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-ttyname This is what I got on my system (i7-5820K, Haswell E): FAIL: misc/tst-ttyname Summary of test results: 1 FAIL I do not know why misc/tst-ttyname fails on my

Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-09 Thread Ken Moffat
On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 12:04:11PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > > UNSUPPORTED: misc/tst-ttyname > > This is what I got on my system (i7-5820K, Haswell E): > > FAIL: misc/tst-ttyname > > Summary of test results: > 1 FAIL > > I do not know why misc/tst-ttyname fails on my

Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-09 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Ken Moffat wrote: On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:55:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Pierre Labastie wrote: On 08/02/2018 05:21, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: At the moment we note that posix/test-getaddrinfo4 and posix/testgetaddrinfo5 may fail on some architectures. According to https://s

Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-08 Thread Ken Moffat
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 08:55:54AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Pierre Labastie wrote: > > On 08/02/2018 05:21, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > > Ken Moffat wrote: > > > > At the moment we note that posix/test-getaddrinfo4 and > > > > posix/testgetaddrinfo5 may fail on some architectures. > > > > > > > > Ac

Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-08 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Pierre Labastie wrote: On 08/02/2018 05:21, Bruce Dubbs wrote: Ken Moffat wrote: At the moment we note that posix/test-getaddrinfo4 and posix/testgetaddrinfo5 may fail on some architectures. According to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20826 the tests need a working internet co

Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-08 Thread Pierre Labastie
On 08/02/2018 05:21, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: >> At the moment we note that posix/test-getaddrinfo4 and >> posix/testgetaddrinfo5 may fail on some architectures. >> >> According to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20826 >> the tests need a working internet connection wi

Re: [lfs-dev] glibc-2.27 should have two fewer failures

2018-02-07 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Ken Moffat wrote: At the moment we note that posix/test-getaddrinfo4 and posix/testgetaddrinfo5 may fail on some architectures. According to https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20826 the tests need a working internet connection with DNS (reading the details, they could pass depending