h.m.brand at xs4all
May 3, 2012, 11:39 PM
Post #3 of 12
On Thu, 3 May 2012 22:25:34 -0400, Ricardo Signes
<perl.p5p [at] rjbs> wrote:
> I have smelled the smoke, and it is not good.
> Let's review some platforms:
> Linux - seems mostly okay, but I have a bunch of failures from
> Tux on OpenSUSE, mostly failing when using ccache,
> failing on ../cpan/Socket/t/sockaddr.t
> Tux, what's up? Anybody else having difficulties?
I never noticed those, as the pattern looked like the usual timing
random failures. You'll note that there is no "predictable" socket
FAILures and the F's pop up in different locations. Seems hard to
Tests start here:
TSTENV = stdio No saved state, selection will be empty
make: *** [test_harness] Error 1
error while running harness target 'test_harness': 2 at /pro/3gl/CPAN/smoke/Test/Smoke.pm line 193.
Bad plan. You planned 31 tests but ran 27.
*ALL* my tests run under TEST_JOBS=n (where n depends on the number of
CPU's in the specific box). For the above report it was 3.
> Solaris - builds just fine for me with suncc and gnucc; I see one failure
> from TonyC related to op/sigsystem.t and Sockt/t/getnameinfo.t
> TonyC, any idea what's up with that? I had no difficulty.
> Darwin - Looks good. No surprise to me, I build it on Darwin all the
> time. I see some red reports from TonyC, but the logs show
> all tests successful, so I think it's a reporting problem..?
> That concludes all the platforms where I regularly build. Here are more:
> MSWin - Looks... pretty good! Well, about as good as usual. I'm
> not sure what's up with the test failure for
> My plan is to try to get a Win32 smoke going overnight here.
> I have a build box, but it's a VM and quite slow. Anyone
> else want to chime in?
> Reini reported a problem with Encode (#112612) not building
> because it uses miniperl but should use perl. I haven't
> seen anyone else reproduce that yet. I've asked for more info.
> Cygwin - Looks bad. I don't know what cygwin looked like around, say,
> 5.14.0-RC0. Does it ever tend to smoke clean? :-/
> Who are our other Cygwin experts on staff?
> I don't have a Cygwin build environment at my disposal.
> NetBSD - Looking pretty bad. I really have no idea what's up here, but
> surely someone does, or can offer speculation. Some of these
> reports look like the Darwin fail: all tests successful,
> report marked bad. Then one has a pile of dbm failures. Are
> things really working or not?
> I don't have a NetBSD machine at my disposal.
> VMS - I see a failure. I don't know what's up. Craig? Anybody?
> AIX - Holy cow, it's green! That's some great news!
> HP-UX - Looks *terrible*. Lots of failures, and flipping through
> them, there seem to be quite a few different kinds of
> failure. Tux, do you have some idea what's up, here?
It is only PA-RISC that lives in a terrible state. I ignored it as
Nicholas was working on that.
The 'm' for HP-UX 10.20 can be ignored: the code has grown to complex
for the compiler to cope when -DDEBUGGING is on. The box only has 512
Mb and might need a -O0 for some files. Not worth digging into and is
not a blocker.
> I don't have access to an HP-UX build environment.
I can give you access to HP-UX 11.23/PA-RISC
Just mail me the required logname and your id_whatever.pub
> Have I missed any platforms I should not have missed?
> Right now, at the very least, HP-UX and NetBSD look blockingly bad.
> I think we need more information on Cygwin and VMS and Win32.
> Please chime in. Remember, the only platforms that I rely on seem
> to be working just fine... ;)
H.Merijn Brand http://tux.nl Perl Monger http://amsterdam.pm.org/
using perl5.00307 .. 5.14 porting perl5 on HP-UX, AIX, and openSUSE