Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure

2014-07-09 Thread Jonathan Dowland
Hi Nikolaus, On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > But yes, it's a bug, and the fix is in fact trivial, it's just that my > coding infrastructure was broken until today. Did you manage to write up a fix for this? If not I'll work on one. Thanks -- Jonathan Dowland

Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure

2014-01-31 Thread Andreas Moog
On 24.11.2013 21:35, Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > I would like to point out that the severity of this bug is exaggerated > IMO, because (apparently) the FTBFS seems to be tied to specific > hardware - I could not reproduce it. FWIW, I also get about a 50% True/False rate running "python2 -c 'import t

Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure

2013-11-24 Thread Nikolaus Schulz
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 06:26:39PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 03/10/13 at 19:40 +0200, Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > > Actually uploading a fixed package will have to wait until I return from > > holidays, though, so it won't happen before 20th October. > > Hi Nikolaus, > > Ping? Grmbl. Thank

Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure

2013-11-23 Thread Lucas Nussbaum
On 03/10/13 at 19:40 +0200, Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > Actually uploading a fixed package will have to wait until I return from > holidays, though, so it won't happen before 20th October. Hi Nikolaus, Ping? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject

Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure

2013-10-03 Thread Nikolaus Schulz
On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 09:27:53AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: > On Thursday, October 03, 2013 02:43:03 PM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > > This is really weird. Because what the test code there does is > > something like this: > > > > s = 24 * 60 * 60 > > time_msg = time.time() - s > > time_no

Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure

2013-10-03 Thread Daniel Schepler
On Thursday, October 03, 2013 02:43:03 PM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:14:50PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 02:45:38 AM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > > > Hm, can you reproduce this? I see that the test parameters there are > > > questionable, b

Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure

2013-10-03 Thread Nikolaus Schulz
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:14:50PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: > On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 02:45:38 AM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > > Hm, can you reproduce this? I see that the test parameters there are > > questionable, but still, the test should not fail. > > Yes, I just reproduced it again.

Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure

2013-10-01 Thread Daniel Schepler
On Wednesday, October 02, 2013 02:45:38 AM Nikolaus Schulz wrote: > Hm, can you reproduce this? I see that the test parameters there are > questionable, but still, the test should not fail. Yes, I just reproduced it again. It doesn't seem to be a 100% failure rate, though, but it does fail for

Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure

2013-10-01 Thread Nikolaus Schulz
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 07:48:59AM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: > From my pbuilder build log: > > ... > debian/rules build > dh --with=python2 build >dh_testdir >dh_auto_configure >debian/rules override_dh_auto_build [...] > ./test_archivemail > ..

Bug#724043: archivemail: FTBFS: Test failure

2013-09-22 Thread Daniel Schepler
Source: archivemail Version: 0.9.0-1 Severity: serious >From my pbuilder build log: ... debian/rules build dh --with=python2 build dh_testdir dh_auto_configure debian/rules override_dh_auto_build make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/buildd/archivemail-0.9.0' mv archivemail.1 archivemail.1.