Re: 2.4.0 release
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Geissert writes:
>
>> [1] As a matter of fact, the huge-usr-share test fails on my machine for
>> some time now. I haven't been able to determine what's causing this
>> behaviour. I briefly talked about it with Adam once but he was unable to
>> reproduce the failure. See:
>> -I: huge-usr-share-percent: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 2076kB 99%
>> +I: huge-usr-share-percent: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share 2064kB
>> 100%
>
> I suspect some sort of file system artifact, probably on my system when I
> created the tags file originally (I think that was me). du is notoriously
> imprecise since the values it returns can depend on the way blocks are
> allocated in the file system. In this case, I suspect that the
> directories outside of usr/share are taking up some tiny amount of space,
> just enough to cause the results to be weird.
>
Isn't that exactly the reason of the existence of --apparent-size?
> We should really just post-process the results of this test to round the
> numbers off, since it's going to change slightly depending on various
> things outside of our control and none of those changes really matter for
> the test.
Does modifying checks/huge-usr-share to call du(1) with --apparent-size help
at all to get results closer to mine?
Otherwise yes, we should probably just s/\d+kB/xkB/ and expect this to be
the output:
I: huge-usr-share-percent: arch-dep-package-has-big-usr-share xkB 100%
Cheers,
--
Raphael Geissert - Debian Developer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net
Reply to: