On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:50:10PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 10:20:22AM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > However, instead of patching the tests, I think I'd actually prefer just > > making debian/rules ignore test failures on GNU/Hurd so that the failures > > would stay visible in the build log. Possibly this should be accompanied > > by an RC bug on hurd so that the issues have to be resolved one way > > or another if it becomes a release architecture. > > The effect of TODO in t/test.pl it to run the tests but not make them > fatal, I believe, so I don't think this holds? Those TODO failures are then visible only in verbose mode. Consider: % ./perl t/TEST io/perlio_leaks.t t/io/perlio_leaks....ok All tests successful. u=0.00 s=0.00 cu=0.00 cs=0.00 scripts=1 tests=12 vs. % ./perl t/TEST -v io/perlio_leaks.t t/io/perlio_leaks....ok 1 - :unix not ok 2 - :unix # TODO [perl #56644] PerlIO resource leaks on open() and then :pop in :unix and :stdio # Failed at io/perlio_leaks.t line 30 # got "4" # expected "3" not ok 3 - :unix # TODO [perl #56644] PerlIO resource leaks on open() and then :pop in :unix and :stdio # Failed at io/perlio_leaks.t line 30 # got "5" # expected "3" ok 4 - :stdio not ok 5 - :stdio # TODO [perl #56644] PerlIO resource leaks on open() and then :pop in :unix and :stdio # Failed at io/perlio_leaks.t line 30 # got "7" # expected "6" not ok 6 - :stdio # TODO [perl #56644] PerlIO resource leaks on open() and then :pop in :unix and :stdio # Failed at io/perlio_leaks.t line 30 # got "8" # expected "6" ok 7 - :perlio ok 8 - :perlio ok 9 - :perlio ok 10 - :crlf ok 11 - :crlf ok 12 - :crlf 1..12 ok All tests successful. u=0.00 s=0.00 cu=0.01 cs=0.00 scripts=1 tests=12 -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
