coreutils archive search

Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ netbsd: 100 ]

Total 100 documents matching your query.

1. Re: coreutils-9.1.198-e68b1.tar.xz on NetBSD (score: 39)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 00:08:36 +0100
On NetBSD 9.0 (x86_64), I see 5 errors: FAIL: tests/misc/date-debug FAIL: tests/misc/date-tz FAIL: tests/misc/expr-multibyte FAIL: tests/tail-2/pipe-f2 FAIL: tests/touch/not-owner The log file is att
/archive/html/coreutils/2023-03/msg00030.html (5,481 bytes)

2. coreutils-8.14.116-1e18d on NetBSD 5.1 (score: 38)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 03:51:32 +0100
On NetBSD 5.1/x86, 11 tests fail: FAIL: rm/inaccessible FAIL: misc/date FAIL: misc/printf-cov FAIL: split/l-chunk FAIL: cp/preserve-slink-time FAIL: du/inaccessible-cwd FAIL: du/long-from-unreadable
/archive/html/coreutils/2012-01/msg00046.html (16,551 bytes)

3. Re: coreutils-8.13.29-43a9 on NetBSD 5.1 (score: 38)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:20:36 +0100
Oh. Hmm, perhaps lseek() on /dev/zero gives ENOENT on NetBSD? I presume there are platforms without /dev/zero but if there are none we're interested in porting too then the require_dev_zero_ check wo
/archive/html/coreutils/2011-10/msg00044.html (8,224 bytes)

4. Re: coreutils-8.13.29-43a9 on NetBSD 5.1 (score: 37)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:09:25 +0200
Well, it may have been due to a missing /dev/zero. But the NetBSD 5.1/x86 machine I was testing on has /dev/zero: NetBSD 5.1 (GENERIC) #0: Sat Nov 6 13:19:33 UTC 2010 Welcome to NetBSD! -bash-4.1$ ls
/archive/html/coreutils/2011-10/msg00043.html (7,656 bytes)

5. Re: coreutils-8.14.116-1e18d on NetBSD 5.1 - split bug (score: 36)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:49:26 +0100
I noticed and fixed that typo: s/But/Bug/ while adding this test: split: avoid failure due to leftover 'errno' value * src/split.c (lines_chunk_split): Fix logic bug that led to unwarranted failure o
/archive/html/coreutils/2012-01/msg00056.html (10,648 bytes)

6. Re: coreutils-9.3.147-d553ab on NetBSD (score: 35)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 15:05:27 +0200
On NetBSD 9.3/x86_64, I see 3 test failures: FAIL: tests/date/date-debug FAIL: tests/date/date-tz FAIL: tests/tail/pipe-f2 On NetBSD 8.0/sparc64, I see these test failures, and additionally: FAIL: te
/archive/html/coreutils/2023-08/msg00071.html (6,292 bytes)

7. Re: coreutils-8.15.74-be17e3: testsuite failures on NetBSD (score: 35)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 17:54:14 +0100
Hi Stefano, Thanks for testing and reporting the results. Unfortunately, from what I recall of NetBSD 5.x failures for the last few coreutils releases, it had problems that seemed numerous and fundam
/archive/html/coreutils/2012-03/msg00085.html (8,688 bytes)

8. Re: coreutils-8.14.116-1e18d on NetBSD 5.1 - split bug (score: 35)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:51:01 +0100
Thanks for the analysis and patch. There was another problem just like that in bytes_chunk_extract. Here's a proposed patch. At first I was going to add a test to exercise the other failure, say with
/archive/html/coreutils/2012-01/msg00054.html (10,941 bytes)

9. Re: coreutils-8.13.29-43a9 on NetBSD 5.1 (score: 35)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:51:17 +0100
I've updated the patch to do both of the above suggestions. However it probably shouldn't be applied unless we're targetting systems without /dev/zero. cheers, Pádraig. Attachment: dev_zero.diff Des
/archive/html/coreutils/2011-10/msg00054.html (9,294 bytes)

10. Re: coreutils-8.13.29-43a9 on NetBSD 5.1 (score: 35)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 09:40:47 +0200
Thanks for the patch. ... This TODO seems like good justification for adding the truncate option. However, just to be a little paranoid, it might be better to ensure that we can actually read from it
/archive/html/coreutils/2011-10/msg00041.html (8,357 bytes)

11. [INSTALLED 2/2] tests: port better to NetBSD (score: 34)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 17:03:14 -0700
* tests/misc/help-version.sh: Test that /dev/full causes shell printf to fail. This ports better to NetBSD 9.88.46, where it doesn’t. Problem reported by Nelson H. F. Beebe. -- tests/misc/help-vers
/archive/html/coreutils/2021-08/msg00021.html (4,782 bytes)

12. coreutils-8.31.90-cc4c.tar.xz on NetBSD 9 (score: 34)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2020 03:09:51 +0100
On NetBSD 9.0, I'm seeing the following test failures: FAIL: tests/misc/date-debug == -- exp2 2020-02-29 11:58:20.435334339 +0100 +++ out2 2020-02-29 11:58:20.445948504 +0100 @@ -5,9 +5,8 @@ date: er
/archive/html/coreutils/2020-02/msg00056.html (9,034 bytes)

13. Re: coreutils on NetBSD 7.1.1 (score: 34)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 15:19:22 -0600
Hello Bruno, Thanks for the testing! Other than that, there are also a number of test failures, among them: FAIL: tests/cp/existing-perm-race FAIL: tests/cp/file-perm-race FAIL: tests/cp/parent-perm-
/archive/html/coreutils/2018-06/msg00099.html (8,632 bytes)

14. Re: coreutils-8.15.74-be17e3 on NetBSD 5.1 (score: 34)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 17:21:45 +0100
And those two new ones should be resolved.
/archive/html/coreutils/2012-03/msg00113.html (7,830 bytes)

15. coreutils-8.15.74-be17e3 on NetBSD 5.1 (score: 34)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 03:22:42 +0100
On NetBSD 5.1/x86, 12 tests fail: FAIL: rm/inaccessible FAIL: misc/date FAIL: misc/printf-cov FAIL: misc/sort-discrim FAIL: cp/preserve-slink-time FAIL: dd/sparse FAIL: du/inaccessible-cwd FAIL: du/l
/archive/html/coreutils/2012-03/msg00090.html (7,678 bytes)

16. coreutils-8.15.74-be17e3: testsuite failures on NetBSD (score: 34)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:33:25 +0100
On NetBSD 5.1: FAIL: rm/inaccessible FAIL: misc/date FAIL: misc/printf-cov FAIL: misc/sort-discrim FAIL: cp/preserve-slink-time FAIL: dd/sparse FAIL: du/inaccessible-cwd FAIL: du/long-from-unreadable
/archive/html/coreutils/2012-03/msg00084.html (8,663 bytes)

17. Re: coreutils-8.14.116-1e18d on NetBSD 5.1 - split bug (score: 34)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:11:14 +0000
Nice one Bruno, thanks! Hmm, I wonder should full_read() be adjusting the errno? I.E. maybe the behavior of read() and full_read() should be different, as the latter can do a successful partial read(
/archive/html/coreutils/2012-01/msg00058.html (7,909 bytes)

18. coreutils-8.14.116-1e18d on NetBSD 5.1 - split bug (score: 34)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 03:32:19 +0100
On NetBSD 5.1/x86, I get this test failure in particular: FAIL: split/l-chunk == split: /dev/zero: No such file or directory stat: cannot stat `x*': No such file or directory rm: cannot remove `x??'
/archive/html/coreutils/2012-01/msg00045.html (6,827 bytes)

19. Re: coreutils-8.13.29-43a9 on NetBSD 5.1 (score: 34)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:55:37 +0200
Thanks for updating it. Given the number of matches and uses here, http://google.com/search?q=/dev/zero+site:netbsd.org I think the above comment must be inaccurate. However, I like the patch and thi
/archive/html/coreutils/2011-10/msg00055.html (9,343 bytes)

20. Re: coreutils-8.13.29-43a9 on NetBSD 5.1 (score: 34)
Author: HIDDEN
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 08:04:10 +0100
This one at least was due to missing /dev/zero which is not required by POSIX so the attached skips the tests requiring it. cheers, Pádraig. Attachment: dev_zero.diff Description: Text document
/archive/html/coreutils/2011-10/msg00040.html (7,608 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu