Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

Quoting Michael Schwendt (2013-08-22 19:20:51) > On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > > > The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw . > > The CheckSoFiles results might be .so plug-in libs (extension modules), > which are stored in private paths, i.e.

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On 2013-08-22 19:20, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw . The CheckSoFiles results might be .so plug-in libs (extension modules), which are stored in private paths, i.e. outside run-

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:10:12 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > > Funny! I'm interested in hearing more about these, > > > >| 347 CheckStaticLibs > >|Static libs not in a -static package. Most are haskell packages > >|which have an exception not handled by f-r. There are more,

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > The overall results with some comments are at http://ur1.ca/f5xxw . The CheckSoFiles results might be .so plug-in libs (extension modules), which are stored in private paths, i.e. outside run-time linker's search. Or even non-versioned sh

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On 2013-08-22 17:45, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: In an attempt to test fedora-review we have run it on almost allpackages in the complete rawhide distribution. Our primary objective is to certify that fedora-review is stable for all this kind o

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 16:03:22 +0200 Alec Leamas wrote: > On 2013-08-22 15:54, Richard Shaw wrote: > > Yes... sorry I assumed you knew... > > > > -ow...@fedoraproject.org > > > > Richard > No, I don't know much. > > Well, it should basically be piece of cake to gen

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:27:47 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > In an attempt to test fedora-review we have run it on almost allpackages > in the complete rawhide distribution. Our primary objective is to > certify that fedora-review is stable for all this kind of input. Also, > these test reveals som

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On 2013-08-22 15:54, Richard Shaw wrote: Yes... sorry I assumed you knew... -ow...@fedoraproject.org Richard No, I don't know much. Well, it should basically be piece of cake to generate such an email for all packages. Before doing such a thing I would certa

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: > The data is already parsed, I have tools to generate list of packages > failing a given test as well as all tests failing for a given package. > It's just that all this is quite a lot of data... > > No way this will happen often, though. This

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

On 2013-08-22 15:41, Richard Shaw wrote: Very interesting... What's the possibility of parsing all the data and sending individual reports to -owner@ ? I don't know that I'd want to get this type of thing frequently, but once would be nice... Richard The data is already parsed, I hav

Re: Overall fedora-review test results.

Very interesting... What's the possibility of parsing all the data and sending individual reports to -owner@ ? I don't know that I'd want to get this type of thing frequently, but once would be nice... Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.o

Overall fedora-review test results.

In an attempt to test fedora-review we have run it on almost allpackages in the complete rawhide distribution. Our primary objective is to certify that fedora-review is stable for all this kind of input. Also, these test reveals some false warnings and other errors. Some are detected and fixed,