[lfs-support] glibc test failures. Acceptable?

Richard r_j_humphreys at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Oct 28 09:25:02 PDT 2013


On Mon, 28/10/13, Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > I have inferred from the book that 'cputimer1' and 'run-conformtest' might be 'acceptable' failures, but I was surprised that the test suite ended mid-way.
> >
> 
> Why do you think it ended mid-way ?  Your output from the make
> check command seems to end normally (I was going to cut it from the
> reply, but I've left it for the moment) - my log ended similarly.

I seem to have misinterpreted the response. 

> Ah, you don't seem to have results from the posix/ tests.  For me
> they are run (and fail as noted) before run-conformtest.out.
> 
> If you look at glibc-check-log (try using less or vim from the host
> system), does tst-getaddrinfo4 get mentioned ?  In my log the .c
> file gets compiled to .o with a command which references the .o and
> .o.dt before creating the .o, then gets linked to tst-getaddrinfo4
> (by gcc), and then gets invoked in the next line to create
> tst-getaddrinfo4.out.
> 
> Do you have any of that in your log ?

I think I neglected to shut down the networking on the host system - so the posix tests did not fail. I did not realise that network isolation was a requirement. I do not have that machine with me here at work - so I will check later.

>
> > I am also assuming that glibc is one of the packages that can safely be installed to a fake root - then tarballed 'slackware style'? (i.e: I am intending that my next step would be make DESTDIR=dest install), rather then installing directly.
> >
> 
> For the first time, we recommend doing things by-the-book so that
> you understand how it all fits together.  If you wish to try doing
> things differently, please be aware that you *might* encounter
> problems that other people don't.

I'll probably get shouted at for this - but here goes...

... forgive my stupidity. I was trying to stick to doing things by the book.
The method of installing to a fake destination directory is explained in sections
6.3.2.3 and 6.3.2.6; so I thought that using DESTDIR *was* doing things 'by the book'.


Based on Mr. Dubbs' comments it seems that things actually went better than I thought.
I will persevere tonight I look forward to a successful build soon.

Again, many thanks, R.



More information about the lfs-support mailing list