bug#10898: test-suite output of automake-1.11.3 - it requested I send it to you!

2012-02-28 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 02/28/2012 05:51 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > [adding autoconf] > > On 02/28/2012 09:42 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > >>>Ah, likely the famous ksh bug with "$@" and empty arguments: >>> >>> >>> > >> See automake

bug#10898: test-suite output of automake-1.11.3 - it requested I send it to you!

2012-02-28 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hi Lou. Please keep the mailing list in loop when you answer. Thanks. I'm re-sending your answer to the list, so that it gets seen by the other subscribers and registered in the bug tracker. On 02/28/2012 03:05 PM, Lou Picciano wrote: > Stefano, > > Tks for your notes - > I'm encouraged to thi

bug#10866: 1.11a OSX with llvm - 3 fails, 47 skips, 3 errors, out of 2856 tests

2012-02-28 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 02/27/2012 11:46 PM, P. Martin wrote: > > $ mkdir a a/b > $ chmod 000 a > $ find a -type d ! -perm -700 > find: a: Permission denied > $ echo exit status: $? > exit status: 1 > $ find a -type d ! -perm -700 -exec chmod u+rwx '{}' \; > find: a: Permission denied > $ echo exit status: $? > exit s

bug#10898: test-suite output of automake-1.11.3 - it requested I send it to you!

2012-02-28 Thread Eric Blake
[adding autoconf] On 02/28/2012 09:42 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>Ah, likely the famous ksh bug with "$@" and empty arguments: >> >> >> > See automake bug#10898. > > At least the AT&T and OpenSolaris versio

bug#8880: [PATCH] tests: fix spurious failure when dependency tracking is unavailable (was: Re: bug#8880: [PATCH] add pgcc support to depcomp)

2012-02-28 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 02/27/2012 11:01 PM, Dave Goodell wrote: > "yacc-dist-nobuild.dir" fails without this depcomp patch, but it passes with > it. I didn't fully grok this test, but it looks like the test requires > dependency support from the compiler+depcomp to operate correctly. > Not really, that was a redundan

bug#10866: 1.11a OSX with llvm - 3 fails, 47 skips, 3 errors, out of 2856 tests

2012-02-28 Thread P. Martin
> On Feb 28, 2012, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > > Yes, that's why I should have asked for "chmod 000 a/b", not "chmod 000 a" :-( I can do that too: $ mkdir a a/b $ chmod 000 a/b $ find a -type d ! -perm -700 a/b find: a/b: Permission denied $ echo exit status: $? exit status: 1 $ find a -type