Re: Useless call to ldconfig and shared libraries issue
El Dijous, 5 de febrer de 2015, a les 11:09:23, Corentin Desfarges va
escriure:
> Le 05/02/2015 10:50, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda a écrit :
> > El Dijous, 5 de febrer de 2015, a les 10:24:25, Corentin Desfarges va
> >
> > escriure:
> >>> Are you sure that in build time do you need to download some data? is
> >>> this
> >>> acceptable?
> >>>
> >>> Leopold
> >>
> >> Yes I need to download the data, else the unit tests can't pass... And I
> >> can't include the data into the package, because of its the size (more
> >> than
> >> 800MB).
> >>
> >> It has already been discussed in this thread :
> >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2014/12/msg00009.html
> >
> > I don't want to reopen the thread, but it's really needed?
> >
> > Are you sure that this test is so crucial to need to do it?
>
> Tests are not "needed", the software works without them. But it's always a
> garantee for the package's quality. I am not an expert in Debian packaging
> and the discussion was about how to add the data, and not if tests were
> crucial or not.
>
> But you can disable tests temporarily.
>
> >> It is strange that the unit tests don't pass with this error (about
> >> shared
> >> library). When I build the package in a chroot environment, they pass.
> >> Have
> >> you tried to change something about rpath ?
> >> By the way, we have to add "wget" as build-deps of the package in
> >> d/control.>
> > No, it's the lack of wget as build dependency. I'm trying to build again
> > the package. I have made some modifications, but I would like to test it
> > before say anything.
>
> Ok, thank you very much for your help.
>
Still fails,
/tmp/buildd/fw4spl-0.9.2/obj-x86_64-linux-
gnu/fwStructuralPatchTest/bin/fwStructuralPatchTest: error while loading
shared libraries: libfwCore.so.0: cannot open shared object file: No such file
or directory
0% tests passed, 31 tests failed out of 31
Total Test time (real) = 0.10 sec
The following tests FAILED:
1 - guiQtTest (Failed)
2 - ioVTKTest (Failed)
3 - ioVtkGdcmTest (Failed)
4 - ioAtomsTest (Failed)
5 - patchMedicalDataTest (Failed)
6 - ioITKTest (Failed)
7 - fwComEdTest (Failed)
8 - fwRuntimeTest (Failed)
9 - fwServicesTest (Failed)
10 - fwDataTest (Failed)
11 - fwMedDataTest (Failed)
12 - fwCoreTest (Failed)
13 - fwGuiQtTest (Failed)
14 - fwToolsTest (Failed)
15 - fwComTest (Failed)
16 - fwDataCampTest (Failed)
17 - fwMathTest (Failed)
18 - fwVtkIOTest (Failed)
19 - fwActivitiesTest (Failed)
20 - fwMemoryTest (Failed)
21 - fwDataIOTest (Failed)
22 - vtkGdcmIOTest (Failed)
23 - scene2DTest (Failed)
24 - fwAtomConversionTest (Failed)
25 - fwAtomsBoostIOTest (Failed)
26 - fwAtomsHdf5IOTest (Failed)
27 - fwStructuralPatchTest (Failed)
28 - fwItkIOTest (Failed)
29 - fwAtomsTest (Failed)
30 - fwThreadTest (Failed)
31 - fwDataToolsTest (Failed)
Errors while running CTest
Makefile:120: recipe for target 'test' failed
make[1]: *** [test] Error 8
make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/buildd/fw4spl-0.9.2/obj-x86_64-linux-gnu'
dh_auto_test: make -j8 test ARGS+=-j8 returned exit code 2
debian/rules:24: recipe for target 'binary' failed
I have commented the test.
Please, could you push a version without the test?
Leopold
--
--
Linux User 152692 GPG: 05F4A7A949A2D9AA
Catalonia
-------------------------------------
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Reply to: