Bug#556559: eglibc: FTBFS [amd64]: Test failure in tst-mqueue5
On Sunday 22 November 2009 14:41:05 you wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 08:17:15AM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > tag 556559 + unreproducible
> > thanks
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:02:13AM -0800, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> > > Package: eglibc
> > > Version: 2.10.1-7
> > > Severity: serious
> > >
> > > From my pbuilder build log:
> > >
> > > ...
> > > #
> > > # Testsuite failures, someone should be working towards
> > > # fixing these! They are listed here for the purpose of
> > > # regression testing during builds.
> > > # Format: <Failed test>, Error <Make error code> [(ignored)]
> > > #
> > > annexc.out, Error 1 (ignored)
> > > check-localplt.out, Error 1
> > > tst-mqueue5.out, Error 1
> > > ***************
> > > Encountered regressions that don't match expected failures:
> > > tst-mqueue5.out, Error 1
> > > make: *** [/tmp/buildd/eglibc-2.10.1/stamp-dir/check_libc] Error 1
> > > dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
> > >
> > > This seems to be an intermittent error, but I've seen it several times
> > > before on previous builds of eglibc.
> >
> > How often are you seeing this problem? I have done dozens of build of
> > eglibc 2.10.1 on amd64 and never seen his problem.
> >
> > Could you please send use the content of
> > build-tree/amd64-libc/rt/tst-mqueue5.out so we can have more details
> > about the problem?
> >
> > Are you using an up to date sid chroot to build eglibc, do you use
> > modified packages?
> >
> > Finally what is your kernel version? Do you have any additional patches?
>
> Any news on that?
I can't seem to reproduce the bug at will, even by running the mqueue5
executable multiple times in a row. And unfortunately, usually the unpacked
pbuilder chroot is gone by the time I see this error, so I haven't been able
to check mqueue5.out.
Actually, I think that the previous times I saw an mqueue5 failure, it was in
the amd64 tests building eglibc in an i386 chroot on an amd64 machine. This
is probably the first time I saw it in a pure amd64 build. So maybe it's
easier to reproduce in that situation.
--
Daniel Schepler
Reply to: