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

Re: openldap update for squeeze



On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 04:52:58PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
while building that with pbuilder, I got:

Starting test048-syncrepl-multiproxy for bdb...
running defines.sh
Starting master slapd on TCP/IP port 9011...
Using ldapsearch to check that master slapd is running...
Using ldapadd to create the context prefix entry in the master...
Starting P1 slave slapd on TCP/IP port 9012...
Using ldapsearch to check that P1 slave slapd is running...
Starting R1 slave slapd on TCP/IP port 9013...
Using ldapsearch to check that R1 slave slapd is running...
Waiting 5 seconds for slapd to start...
1 > Using ldapadd to populate the master directory...
Waiting 7 seconds for syncrepl to receive changes...
1 < Comparing retrieved entries from master and P1 slave...
1 < Comparing retrieved entries from master and R1 slave...
test failed - master and R1 slave databases differ

/tmp/buildd/openldap-2.4.23/tests/scripts/test048-syncrepl-multiproxy failed for bdb (exit 1)
make[3]: *** [bdb-mod] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/openldap-2.4.23/debian/build/tests'
make[2]: *** [test] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/openldap-2.4.23/debian/build/tests'
make[1]: *** [test] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/openldap-2.4.23/debian/build'
make: *** [build-stamp] Error 2
dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
E: Failed autobuilding of package
I: unmounting dev/pts filesystem

Do you have any idea what went wrong?

I don't. Does it fail the same way twice in a row?

I know the test suite has some timing-related issues that occasionally cause transient failures. I also know there used to be (and probably still are) some subtle (and hard-to-reproduce) bugs in replication. It's impossible to say which this is, since the symptoms would be the same.

If the test failure turns out to not be reproducible: while it's not exactly confidence-inspiring, all I can say is that it's unlikely to be a regression caused by the new patch.

thanks,
Ryan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: