2007/7/25, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yep, looks like that did the trick. Facundo, a similar change may help
> with the GSoC project you're mentoring (the new smtplib tests failed on
> at least one of the buildbots).
Yes! Alan is already working in this (he sent me today a patch, :).
Re
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Andrew Bennetts wrote:
>> Or use port 0 to let the operating system pick a free port:
>>
>> >>> import socket
>> >>> s = socket.socket()
>> >>> s.bind(("127.0.0.1", 0))
>> >>> s.getsockname()
>> ('127.0.0.1', 42669)
>>
>> -Andrew.
>
> I've changed test_url
Andrew Bennetts wrote:
> Facundo Batista wrote:
>> 2007/7/24, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Maybe the tests should be changed to use a not-so-standard port.
>
> Or use port 0 to let the operating system pick a free port:
>
> >>> import socket
> >>> s = socket.socket()
> >>> s.b
Facundo Batista wrote:
> 2007/7/24, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > some of the Debian buildbots happier, but several of the other buildbots
> > are reporting a variety of "Address already in use" errors in the
> > subthreads created by test_urllib2.
>
> Test pass ok in my machine.
>
> H
2007/7/24, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> some of the Debian buildbots happier, but several of the other buildbots
> are reporting a variety of "Address already in use" errors in the
> subthreads created by test_urllib2.
Test pass ok in my machine.
However, if in another terminal I make...
A lot of the buildbots are red at the moment, which makes it harder to
tell if a checkin broke anything new on other platforms.
I've checked in a change to test_resource that should hopefully make
some of the Debian buildbots happier, but several of the other buildbots
are reporting a variety o
