emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#11897: closed (automake 1.12.2 test failure on Mac


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#11897: closed (automake 1.12.2 test failure on Mac OS X 10.7)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:39:02 +0000

Your message dated Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:32:39 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#11897: automake 1.12.2 test failure on Mac OS X 10.7
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #11897,
regarding automake 1.12.2 test failure on Mac OS X 10.7
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
11897: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=11897
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: automake 1.12.2 test failure on Mac OS X 10.7 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 13:44:06 +0200
Hi there,

here is another test failure I am seeing on Mac OS X 10.7.4 with automake 
1.12.2. Specifically, two tap test fail with errors. So when I execute

   make check TESTS="t/suffix8.tap t/suffix10.tap"

then I get this (after removing some fluff):


PASS: t/suffix8.tap 1 - libtoolize
PASS: t/suffix8.tap 2 - aclocal
PASS: t/suffix8.tap 3 - autoconf
PASS: t/suffix8.tap 4 - automake
PASS: t/suffix8.tap 5
ERROR: t/suffix8.tap 5 - configure # OUT-OF-ORDER (expecting 6)
ERROR: t/suffix8.tap 6 - make test0 # OUT-OF-ORDER (expecting 7)
ERROR: t/suffix8.tap 7 - make test1 # OUT-OF-ORDER (expecting 8)
ERROR: t/suffix8.tap 8 - make test2 # OUT-OF-ORDER (expecting 9)
ERROR: t/suffix8.tap 9 - make all # OUT-OF-ORDER (expecting 10)
ERROR: t/suffix8.tap 11 # UNPLANNED
ERROR: t/suffix8.tap 10 - make distcheck # UNPLANNED
ERROR: t/suffix8.tap - too many tests run (expected 10, got 12)
PASS: t/suffix10.tap 1 - libtoolize
PASS: t/suffix10.tap 2 - aclocal
PASS: t/suffix10.tap 3 - autoconf
PASS: t/suffix10.tap 4 - automake
PASS: t/suffix10.tap 5
ERROR: t/suffix10.tap 5 - configure # OUT-OF-ORDER (expecting 6)
ERROR: t/suffix10.tap 6 - make test # OUT-OF-ORDER (expecting 7)
ERROR: t/suffix10.tap 7 - make all # UNPLANNED
ERROR: t/suffix10.tap - too many tests run (expected 7, got 8)


I think the problem is caused by the "configure" script spitting out these 
messages:

checking for archiver @FILE support... rm: cannot remove `conftest.dSYM': Is a 
directory
no
checking for strip... strip
checking for ranlib... ranlib
checking command to parse /usr/bin/nm output from cc object... rm: cannot 
remove `conftest.dSYM': Is a directory
ok

Note the isolated "ok" on a line of its own; apparently this makes the test 
think that an unplanned test step occurred.


This in turn is caused by a "bug" in libtool -- or rather, there is a peculiar 
behavior of the Mac OS X compilers (namely to create conftest.dSYM directories 
under certain circumstances), and libtool hence needs to replace "rm -f 
conftest*" by "rm -rf conftest*". This was done some years ago, but apparently 
was forgotten in three cases.

I already reported this to libtool: 
<http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=11895>
But since it directly affects the test suite of automake, I thought it best to 
report this here, too. Perhaps you would like to workaround it by making the 
test a bit more strict about how it detects a completed test step?


Cheers,
Max





--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#11897: automake 1.12.2 test failure on Mac OS X 10.7 Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:32:39 +0200
On 07/10/2012 04:30 PM, Max Horn wrote:
> 
> On 10.07.2012, at 16:06, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> 
>> On 07/10/2012 03:56 PM, Max Horn wrote:
>>>
>>> This fixes most of the errors, except for
>>>
>>> PASS: t/suffix8.tap 10
>>> ERROR: t/suffix8.tap 10 - make distcheck # UNPLANNED
>>> ERROR: t/suffix8.tap - too many tests run (expected 10, got 11)
>>>
>>> I looked at the log, this is again the same issue, configure
>>> is run once again
>>>
>> Of course, by "make distcheck"! *faceplam*  I should have been more
>> careful.
>>
>>> and once again suffers from the same problem.
>>>
>> Does the attached patch fares better?
> 
> Works perfectly, thanks!
> 
Thanks for confirming.  I've pushed it, and I'm closing this bug
report.

Best regards,
  Stefano



--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]