Bug#759129: nanomsg tests fail on sparc

2014-10-23 Thread Harlan Lieberman-Berg
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Jakub Wilk wrote: > I'll try to reproduce the FTBFS on a porterbox later today. > Awesome. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. > Well, not quite. Sparc is not a release architecture. And even if it was, > this package has never build on sparc, so

Bug#759129: nanomsg tests fail on sparc

2014-10-23 Thread Jakub Wilk
c is not a release architecture. And even if it was, this package has never build on sparc, so the missing build wouldn't stop testing migration. The thing that is holding the testing migration is this RC bug: (#759129), ...which says something about FTBFS on i386. Either the bug should

Bug#759129: nanomsg tests fail on sparc

2014-10-23 Thread Harlan Lieberman-Berg
Hello mentors, porters, I'm having some trouble debugging why the nanomsg tests are failing - reliably, at least - on sparc. Because of the way the test suite works, I don't end up getting a lot of information about why the failure occurs, other than just a general "bus error". I don't have acce

Bug#759129:

2014-08-31 Thread Harlan Lieberman-Berg
Control: reopen -1 Control: tag -1 +upstream Control: thanks It seems that the test suite failures are intermittent, and that the test suite itself is indicating of some fairly reliable build failures across a few arches. After talking to upstream, I'm going to open tickets there to track these F

Bug#759129: marked as done (nanomsg ftbfs in current unstable (i386, and other architectures))

2014-08-29 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System
Your message dated Sat, 30 Aug 2014 04:00:07 + with message-id and subject line Bug#759129: fixed in nanomsg 0.4~beta+dfsg-3 has caused the Debian Bug report #759129, regarding nanomsg ftbfs in current unstable (i386, and other architectures) to be marked as done. This means that you claim

Bug#759129: nanomsg ftbfs in current unstable (i386, and other architectures)

2014-08-24 Thread Harlan Lieberman-Berg
On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 01:09 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > then it's better to run these but ignore the test results (or just ignore the > test failures of these which don't succeed). Definitely. I'll set that up if we still have more problems. I just submitted -2 to solve this issue and pushed

Bug#759129: nanomsg ftbfs in current unstable (i386, and other architectures)

2014-08-24 Thread Matthias Klose
Am 24.08.2014 um 23:43 schrieb Harlan Lieberman-Berg: > If we > still see problems in other places, we'll have to disable the tests > altogether. then it's better to run these but ignore the test results (or just ignore the test failures of these which don't succeed). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t

Bug#759129: nanomsg ftbfs in current unstable (i386, and other architectures)

2014-08-24 Thread Harlan Lieberman-Berg
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 18:34:17 +0200 Matthias Klose wrote: > PASS: tests/iovec > ./test-driver: line 107: 14170 Aborted "$@" > $log_file 2>&1 > FAIL: tests/msg > PASS: tests/inproc_shutdown Yeah, unfortunately, upstream's test suite is really buggy. I've already had to disable one

Bug#759129: nanomsg ftbfs in current unstable (i386, and other architectures)

2014-08-24 Thread Matthias Klose
Package: src:nanomsg Version: 0.4~beta+dfsg-1 Severity: serious Tags: sid jessie reproduced with current unstable on i386: [...] PASS: tests/iovec ./test-driver: line 107: 14170 Aborted "$@" > $log_file 2>&1 FAIL: tests/msg PASS: tests/inproc_shutdown [...] make[4]: Entering direc