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

Re: "Pre-testing" hurd issues


Adam D. Barratt, le Wed 02 May 2012 20:34:47 +0100, a écrit :
> A few weeks ago I performed a few test britney runs, in order to try and
> answer the question "how much pain would trying to squeeze hurd in to
> testing be right now?".

Thanks for sharing this!

> The end result of my test runs was an initial set of ~3800 hurd binaries
> in testing, of which around 150 were uninstallable.

I don't know when you did it precisely, but with libpulse being already
fixed, and krb5 and libav being built, the figures would get better.

> Looking through the
> problems I noted at the time, several are still relevant:
> - coreutils FTBFS on hurd with test failures

I have already gone through them, and reported as #670476, #670477,

> - python2.7 FTBFS on hurd.  The build log appears to truncate part way
> through the testsuite

Pino is working on these. python2.7 was usually building fine in the
past, it's the newer releases which got a hung point.

> - britney won't consider migrating util-linux/hurd because of the
> out-of-date {c,}fdisk-udeb binaries in unstable.  I'm guessing these
> should actually still be being built; it looks like they were
> accidentally dropped as part of fixing #635530.

Oops!  Indeed, I don't actually see why these should not be built on

> - #650080 means that the "hurd" source package itself had to be forced
> in



Reply to: