t=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 03:10:20 +0100
> To: Goswin Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> CC: Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bug#127783:
> But an unexpected failure suggests a new error. That should fail and
> stop the build.
That impression is incorrect. An unexpected failure may or may not be
a new error. If you are concerned about unexpected failures, you'd
have to investigate them. Stopping the build is not appropriate, since
e
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Goswin Brederlow writes:
> > Package: gcc-3.0
> > Version: 1:3.0.3-1
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > The package doesn't pass its selftests and _should_fail_ to build.
> > It should fail when the first make fails and not continue with other
> > selftest,
Goswin Brederlow writes:
> Package: gcc-3.0
> Version: 1:3.0.3-1
> Severity: normal
>
> The package doesn't pass its selftests and _should_fail_ to build.
> It should fail when the first make fails and not continue with other
> selftest, otherwise errors get overlocked.
huh? then we'll never have
Package: gcc-3.0
Version: 1:3.0.3-1
Severity: normal
The package doesn't pass its selftests and _should_fail_ to build.
It should fail when the first make fails and not continue with other
selftest, otherwise errors get overlocked.
The timeout might be the reason why it fails to build on m68k,
so
5 matches
Mail list logo
