At 2023-03-06T17:39:52+0100, Bruno Haible wrote:
> G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I think I'll go ahead and refactor the test a bit, committing
> > something that may be more revealing when time permits testing on
> > the Hurd and NetBSD again.
>
> +1. It's perfectly to OK to have 1 test fail in a
G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think I'll go ahead and refactor the test a bit, committing something
> that may be more revealing when time permits testing on the Hurd and
> NetBSD again.
+1. It's perfectly to OK to have 1 test fail in a release and fix that only
in the next or a subsequent releas
[self-follow-up]
At 2023-03-06T09:32:06-0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2023-03-06T01:54:44+0100, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > On GNU/Hurd and NetBSD 9.0, the build succeeds,
> > and there is 1 test failure:
>
> They're different in each case.
This statement is incorrect, or at least premature.
Hi Bruno,
At 2023-03-06T01:54:44+0100, Bruno Haible wrote:
> On GNU/Hurd and NetBSD 9.0, the build succeeds,
Excellent news!
My conntections to FSF France's NetBSD host have timed out for me every
time I've tried for the past few weeks.
> and there is 1 test failure:
They're different in each
On GNU/Hurd and NetBSD 9.0, the build succeeds, and there is 1 test failure:
FAIL: src/roff/groff/tests/initialization_is_quiet.sh
=
testing "-m cs"; COMPAT=""
FAIL src/roff/groff/tests/initialization_is_quiet.sh (exit status: 1)
Find attache
