> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 00:16:45 +0200 > From: Patrice Dumas <pertu...@free.fr> > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:00:22PM +0100, Gavin Smith wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 11:43:16PM +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 10:21:01PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > > Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 20:43:45 +0200 > > > > > From: Patrice Dumas <pertu...@free.fr> > > > > > > > > > > Many info tests on cygwin-32 fail (release 7.1 branch). I attach the > > > > > info tests log, I can provide more information on configure output, > > > > > and > > > > > some other logs if needed. > > > > > > > > > > ===================================================== > > > > > GNU Texinfo 7.1.1-20240920: info/test-suite.log > > > > > ===================================================== > > > > > > > > > > # TOTAL: 87 > > > > > # PASS: 51 > > > > > # SKIP: 0 > > > > > # XFAIL: 0 > > > > > # FAIL: 36 > > > > > # XPASS: 0 > > > > > # ERROR: 0 > > > > > > > > That's most probably the side effect of using Cygwin tools again: the > > > > native port of info cannot run many of the tests because the test rig > > > > uses features not supported by native Windows programs (emulation of > > > > terminals and other such stuff). When running the tests with MSYS, > > > > the test suite detects that and skips those tests, but since you run > > > > them with Cygwin, I'm guessing that the way the test suite detects > > > > Windows ports fails for some reason. > > > > > > > > My records from running the test suite in Texinfo-7.1 indicate that 56 > > > > of the info tests were skipped, whereas above you say that none were > > > > skipped. So I'm quite sure this is the reason. > > > > > > Actually, my feeling is that it is the absence of posix_openpt that > > > triggers have_ptys to be false, which in turn causes pseudotty not to > > > be built. In the CI tests, cygwin have posix_openpt, while mingw (in > > > cygwin) does not. > > > > > > Gavin, maybe you could have a look? > > > > My first question is what exactly "mingw in cygwin" means. If this is > > some mixture of mingw (i.e. a native MS-Windows environment) and cygwin > > then it may not be a setup worth supporting, due to subtle incompatibilities > > between the two, as has been recently discussed. > > > > If it is Texinfo built on cygwin to run in cygwin, as a cygwin program > > (not a native MS-Windows program), that is different and may be more worth > > supporting. > > This case is indeed Texinfo built on cygwin to run in cygwin, as a cygwin > program.
??? Then why are you using Strawberry Perl? That's not a Cygwin build of Perl. The Cygwin Perl should not output CR-LF end-of-line format, it should output the Unix newline-only EOLs. Cygwin builds should normally need no patching and fixing, since Cygwin's purpose is to provide a faithful emulation of a Posix system. Your original message about this build of Texinfo said: > I would like to have more tests for mingw (on cygwin) using Bruno CI > https://github.com/gnu-texinfo/ci-check > > However, 'prove' is not found by configure, by > AC_CHECK_PROGS([PROVE], [prove], []) > while perl is found with > AC_PATH_PROG([PERL], [perl]) > > I checked the binary zip provided for strawberry perl, which seems to be > the Perl used in that case, and there is a prove.bat file provided. > > Do testers with mingw and strawberry Perl have prove found by configure? > Any idea on what should be done? This seems to say you are building and testing the MinGW port of Texinfo, not a Cygwin port. If it's a Cygwin port, why is MinGW mentioned and why are Strawberry Perl and the Windows C:\foo\bar format of file names relevant? none of that are supported by Cygwin, AFAIK.
