[Top][All Lists]

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

[GNU Autoconf 2.68b] testsuite: 454 479 failed

From: Dipl. Inform. Samuel John
Subject: [GNU Autoconf 2.68b] testsuite: 454 479 failed
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 11:06:32 +0100

On another Mac (with the Command Line Tools for Xcode, I get two failures.
I used this I use 
 to build (note the applied patches to fix test 100.) So I assume there are 
some random failures remaining. And it seems that test 271 and test 359 show up 
only when I don't have the Command Line tools (see below).

Attachment: testsuite.log
Description: Binary data

In my older mail (below), I tested without the Command Line Tools but I set the 
CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS, SDKROOT and all that to match the new location at 


Am 06.03.2012 um 09:15 schrieb Samuel John:

> Hi Eric,
> Oh, I failed in getting the autoconf.git (repository) to work and compile, so 
> I stick to the 2.68b with some patches.
> Now, I use 
> [this](https://github.com/2bits/homebrew/blob/ac268b/Library/Formula/autoconf.rb)
>  build script for testing. There are some patches at the bottom of that file 
> which are applied. And indeed they seem to fix test No 100. Right now, not 
> all patches, you mailed me 
> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf/2012-03/txtmjhqa66pjL.txt) 
> are in that build script. I asked to include them.
> Here is the discussion about autoconf 2.68b building on Mac systems: 
> https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/issues/10686
> There seems to be a random component:
> Different runs:
> [GNU Autoconf 2.68b] testsuite: 271 359 367 387 481 493 failed
> [GNU Autoconf 2.68b] testsuite: 271 359 399 failed
> [GNU Autoconf 2.68b] testsuite: 271 352 359 485 failed
> <testsuite.log>I attached the testsuite.log for the last run.
> bests
> Samuel
> On 05.03.2012, at 20:00, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 03/05/2012 11:55 AM, Dipl. Inform. Samuel John wrote:
>>> Are you sure that the patches apply correctly. I just use homebrew to 
>>> build/test autoconf and added 
>>> { :p1 => 
>>> 'http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf/2012-03/txtmjhqa66pjL.txt' }
>>> but I am not even sure if the link you provided is directly patch 
>>> compatible.
>> No - the list archives are munged, and therefore not directly patch
>> compatible.  But that message is just telling you what has gone into
>> autoconf.git, so it may be easiest to just check out the latest
>> autoconf.git to pull the patches from there.
>> -- 
>> Eric Blake   address@hidden    +1-919-301-3266
>> Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

reply via email to

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