Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 10:12:52AM -0600, robert wrote:
>> Partial output of make check:
>>
>> make --no-print-directory check-recursive
>> Making check in .
>> make --no-print-directory libudev/test-libudev udev/test-udev
>> make[3]: `libudev/test-libudev' is up to date.
>> make[3]: `udev/test-udev' is up to date.
>> make --no-print-directory check-TESTS
>>
>> udev-test will run 142 tests:
>>
>> TEST 1: no rules
>> device
>> '/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/host0/target0:0:0/0:0:0:0/block/sda'
>> expecting node/link 'sda'
>> add:         ok
>> remove:      error as expected
>>
>> TEST 2: label test of scsi disc
>> device
>> '/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/host0/target0:0:0/0:0:0:0/block/sda'
>> expecting node/link 'boot_disk'
>> add:         ok
>> remove:      ok
>>
>> AFTER THIS, ALL add/remove reports ok, UNTIL
>> ......
>>
>> TEST 139: TEST MODE=0000
>> device
>> '/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/host0/target0:0:0/0:0:0:0/block/sda'
>> expecting node/link 'sda'
>> permissions: ok
>> add:         ok
>> remove:      error as expected
>>
>> TEST 140: TEST PROGRAM feeds OWNER, GROUP, MODE
>> device
>> '/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/host0/target0:0:0/0:0:0:0/block/sda'
>> expecting node/link 'sda'
>> permissions: ok
>> add:         ok
>> remove:      error as expected
>>
>> TEST 141: TEST PROGRAM feeds MODE with overflow
>> device
>> '/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/host0/target0:0:0/0:0:0:0/block/sda'
>> expecting node/link 'sda'
>> permissions: ok
>> add:         ok
>> remove:      error as expected
>>
>> TEST 142: magic [subsys/sysname] attribute substitution
>> device
>> '/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/host0/target0:0:0/0:0:0:0/block/sda'
>> expecting node/link 'sda-8741C4G-end'
>> permissions: ok
>> add:         ok
>> remove:      ok
>>
>> 1 errors occured
>>
>> FAIL: test/udev-test.pl
>> ==============================================
>> 1 of 1 test failed
>> Please report to linux-hotp...@vger.kernel.org
>> ==============================================
>>
>  So, as with many test suites, bookkeeping might not be its strong
> point.  As Stuart noted, we normally ignore "error as expected".
> 
>  My own build on the machine I'm using today (LFS from a week or
> two before 6.7 was released) reported that 0 errors occurred and
> 1 test passed.  However, my results differ from yours - I see
> everything you have quoted, but I had other 'error as expected'
> reports in tests 81 (remove) and 82 (add).
> 
>  Probably, the term to search for is 'error' not FAIL - maybe you
> could recheck your log ?
> 
>  If that doesn't show any other information, you need to consider
> whether the tests all *need* to pass.  I'm not familiar with the
> udev testsuite, but many testsuites check corner-cases and have
> occasional failures from time to time, usually because something
> unrelated changed and the testsuite itself broke.
> 
>  Having all tests pass might provide some comfort, but it gives no
> information about whether the package will work in real life.  I am
> inclined to suggest "install it, continue, and see if it works when
> you have booted it".
> 
>  Maybe there is something unusual about your host distro,
> particularly the toolchain or kernel.  What are the versions of gcc,
> glibc, and the kernel on the host system ?  (/me hopes this isn't an
> example of using LFS-6.7 to see if it will build itself).
> 
>  Also, if you have access to the .config for the running kernel
> (/proc/config.gz if it has been enabled, or other distro-specific
> places), are any of the CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED option(s) set ?
> You definitely _don't_ want those set in a recent system, but might
> need it/them on an old host.  As of 2.6.36 only  ..._V2 exists, but I
> think 2.6.35 might have had both options.
> 
> ĸen

.config of host reveals: # CONFIG_SYSFS_DEPRECATED_V2 is not set
gcc (Ubuntu 4.4.3-4ubuntu5) 4.4.3
glibc: libc-2.11.1.so
kernel: vmlinuz-2.6.32-26-generic

what does this mean?
"me hopes this isn't an example of using LFS-6.7 to see if it will build 
itself"??????
-- 
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to