> Cc: Gavin Smith <gavinsmith0...@gmail.com> > Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2024 00:03:19 +0200 > From: Bruno Haible via Bug reports for the GNU Texinfo documentation system > <bug-texinfo@gnu.org> > > Patrice Dumas wrote: > > All in all, this is already unhoped-for that we can manage to have most > > of the tests passing on such a broken platform! > > I agree. *Only* 6 failures on mingw is an achievement! > > > Those errors are expected. > > Would you mind marking them as expected failures?
Not all of them are expected when using the MSYS tools to run the test suite, so marking them expected failures just because you decided to use Cygwin instead would be incorrect, IMO, because it might mask real problems uncovered by these tests. > # Expected test failures. > XFAIL_TESTS = > if OS_IS_NATIVE_WINDOWS > XFAIL_TESTS += \ > test_scripts/formatting_split_nocopying_split_dev_null.sh \ > test_scripts/formatting_cpp_lines.sh \ > test_scripts/formatting_js_license_reuse_output_file.sh \ > test_scripts/formatting_reuse_macro_expand_file.sh \ > test_scripts/encoded_verbatiminclude_names_latin1_html_explicit_encoding.sh > \ > > test_scripts/encoded_verbatiminclude_names_latin1_explicit_encoding_rawtext.sh > endif Sorry, I object to such changes, unless the condition could somehow be changed to detect only MinGW run via Cygwin Bash and Cygwin Coreutils/Grep/Diff etc. The "official" way of running Posix scripts with MinGW ports is by using MSYS, not Cygwin, and that is what Texinfo should support first and foremost.
