bug#10441: The testsuite assumes that ln -s really creates a symlink

Hi! "ln -s" on MSYS does not create a symlink, instead it makes a regular copy. Lots of test cases (on master) FAIL due to this. "test -h foo" will simply not return success on MSYS, ever. Affected tests (that I have noticed): add-missing.tap (lots of failing test cases) copy.test Cheers, Pete

bug#10440: Can't locate TAP/Parser.pm

Hi! I tried make check on MSYS with the current master, and among other things, this problem stands out as it FAILs so many test cases. I'm using tap-bailout-w.test as an example, no use reporting the same problem 80+ times, right :-) The perl version is 5.8.8 Here's tap-bailout-w.log: ./tap-b

bug#10436: bug#10427: bug#10436: New testsuite driver and extra trailing backslash in recipes

I pushed the following doc fix into Autoconf, so that these two portability issues are documented there. It turns out that the second issue is actually due to an old Bash bug -- it's not Solaris-specific. >From b1f0e147aa7aa259dea2c34c5a0ac7965d6efd7e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Eggert D

bug#10437: bug#10427: bug#10437: parallel-tests: `recheck' recipe can cause sed to be invoked with too long input lines

On 01/05/2012 07:24 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > On 01/05/2012 07:06 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: >> On 01/05/12 06:07, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> Which "sort of thing" exactly? I could find only one place which suffers >>> of the problem you've pointed out, i.e., the `recheck recheck-html' rules >>

bug#10437: parallel-tests: `recheck' recipe can cause sed to be invoked with too long input lines

On 01/05/2012 07:06 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 01/05/12 06:07, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Which "sort of thing" exactly? I could find only one place which suffers >> of the problem you've pointed out, i.e., the `recheck recheck-html' rules >> in lib/am/check.am. Am I missing something? > > Sor

bug#10437: parallel-tests: `recheck' recipe can cause sed to be invoked with too long input lines

On 01/05/12 06:07, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Which "sort of thing" exactly? I could find only one place which suffers > of the problem you've pointed out, i.e., the `recheck recheck-html' rules > in lib/am/check.am. Am I missing something? Sorry, that appears to have been a miscount on my part:

bug#10437: parallel-tests: `recheck' recipe can cause sed to be invoked with too long input lines

Reference: On 01/05/2012 03:07 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > Patch coming up soon. > And here it is. I will push by this evening if there is no objection. Regards, Stefano >From e3b0e12400f5fa4220fc0aa79dd0989e56def9c6 Mon Sep 17 00:00

bug#10437: parallel-tests: `recheck' recipe can cause sed to be invoked with too long input lines (was: Re: bug#10427: coreutils-8.14.116-1e18d: testsuite failures on NetBSD 5.1)

[adding bug-automake in CC:] Reference: Hi Paul, thanks for the report and diagnosis. On 01/05/2012 10:00 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: > The latest coreutils snapshot fail to build > >> On 01/03/2012 06:10 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> FYI, here's

bug#10436: New testsuite driver and extra trailing backslash in recipes

On 01/05/2012 01:47 PM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > [adding bug-automake in CC:] > > Reference: > And here is the definitive version of the patch that I'll push by this evening (to master) if there is no objection. Thanks, Stefano >From c8

bug#10436: New testsuite driver and extra trailing backslash in recipes (was: Re: bug#10427: coreutils-8.14.116-1e18d: testsuite failures on NetBSD 5.1)

[adding bug-automake in CC:] Reference: Hi Paul, thanks for the report and diagnosis. On 01/05/2012 10:00 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: > I'm sending this to bug-automake because I think it's an automake > issue. However, the problem causes the la

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

tags 7849 patch close 7849 thanks On 01/05/2012 10:53 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-05 09:38: >> Hi Peter, thanks for the patch. Looks good, modulo a couple of nits >> below. Feel free to push to master when they have been addressed. > > Pushed with nits addressed. I

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-05 09:38: > Hi Peter, thanks for the patch. Looks good, modulo a couple of nits > below. Feel free to push to master when they have been addressed. Pushed with nits addressed. I'm not sure about the strange/strangely thing either, but strangely seems safer so...

bug#10434: FAIL: depmod.tap 50 - tru64 [long VPATH] make & remake

Stefano Lattarini wrote: ... > Unfortunately, I don't have access to a Tru64 system, so I can't do the > testing > myself. Nor do I.

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

Hi Peter, thanks for the patch. Looks good, modulo a couple of nits below. Feel free to push to master when they have been addressed. On 01/05/2012 01:35 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > > From 27100f0b94f8e38e8bd30c27277d7ad4e9f4dd1a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Peter Rosin > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012

bug#10434: FAIL: depmod.tap 50 - tru64 [long VPATH] make & remake

On 01/04/2012 08:57 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > (latest from git/master) > I just ran the test suite using the latest and now we're down to 5 failures! > > # TOTAL: 2478 > # PASS: 2382 > # SKIP: 61 > # XFAIL: 30 > # FAIL: 5 > # XPASS: 0 > # ERROR: 0 > > $ grep '^FAIL:' tests/test