On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 10:16:34PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 07:35:10PM +0200, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote:
> > On Sun, 2020-05-24 at 16:44 +0200, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > Here are test results from a jhalfs run:
> > > [...
> >
> > about vim test
> > > ===================================
> > > [...]
> > > -------------------
> > > vim: stops at test1:
> > > test1 FAILED - terminal size must be 80x24 or larger
> > > Executed: 0 Tests
> > > Skipped: 0 Tests
> > > Failed: 0 Tests
> >
> > For some reason, my gnome terminal had 80 columns and 23 lines.
> > Vim tests do not run if the number of lines is less than 24!
> > and the number of columns is less than 80.
> >
> > Note that the in chroot the command "tty" returns "Not a tty", and that
> > may explains some test failures, specially with bash tests
> >
> > Pierre
> >
> Hi Pierre,
>
> thanks for looking at this.
>
> One of the reasons why my build has taken so long is that I'm trying
> to look at every failign testsuite, to see if there is a way around
> it. For some things (e.g. iproute) we just say it doesn't work - at
> the moment I don't know if it can work (needs libmna, and then it
> wants sudo for rmmod), but in chroot I'm going to suggest it SHOULD
> NOT be run and therefore its missing deps can be ignored.
>
> And in particular, I had not realised that tty fails like that. It
> does indeed explain apparent failures in the bash tests. I wonder
> if, instead of mounting dev/pts we should bind it ?
Or, better - because we bind /mnt/lfs/dev to /dev, perhaps NOT mount
/dev/pts in chroot ? In theory, that should give us what is on the
host in /dev/pts, but then the group may be wrong if the host uses a
different group from LFS.
ĸen
--
Remembering The People's Republic of Treacle Mine Road.
Truth! Justice! Freedom! Reasonably priced Love!
And a Hard-boiled Egg!
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
