Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-23 Thread Andrew Benton
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:59:47 +1200 Simon Geard wrote: > And that's fine - I'm not trying to convince everyone else that running > tests is unnecessary. I just don't find it worth my time, running tests > for every piece of software I install. Same here. If it's broken I'll find out when I try to

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-23 Thread Simon Geard
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 15:21 +0100, Eric Plummer wrote: > Simon: > That is one heck of an assumption... If you assume everyone else does > their job properly, I have a used car you might be interested in... Oh, I know it's not necessarily accurate, don't get me wrong. But as I said, if I don't tru

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-22 Thread Eric Plummer
Simon Geard wrote: > On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:00 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: >> Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'. >> You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own. > > It's more that I see automated testing as being for the developer's > benefit - so

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-22 Thread Simon Geard
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:00 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'. > You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own. It's more that I see automated testing as being for the developer's benefit - so when writing code, it's ess

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-22 Thread Simon Geard
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 12:00 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Interesting. I have more faith in my own code than I do in others'. > You apparently trust others' works more than you do your own. It's more that I see automated testing as being for the developer's benefit - so when writing code, it's esse

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-20 Thread Mike McCarty
Simon Geard wrote: > On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: >> Webmaster wrote: >>> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the >>> check failed you can do nothing. >> Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard >> many a manager say more o

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-20 Thread Mike McCarty
Simon Geard wrote: > On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: >> Webmaster wrote: >>> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the >>> check failed you can do nothing. >> Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard >> many a manager say more o

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-19 Thread robert
On 06/16/2011 05:30 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > robert wrote: >> cannot get beyond this: >> >> make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors. >> make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.12.1' >> make: *** [check] Error 2 >> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored)

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-18 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Simon Geard wrote: > On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: >> Webmaster wrote: >>> I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the >>> check failed you can do nothing. >> Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard >> many a manager say more o

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-18 Thread Simon Geard
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 11:12 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Webmaster wrote: > > I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the > > check failed you can do nothing. > > Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard > many a manager say more or less the same thing

Re: Re:6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-17 Thread Danny Engelbarts
_know_ something is wrong than trust my data to a system that might get hopelessly corrupted! > > > -- Original -- > From: "robert"; > Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2011 00:33 AM > To: "lfs-support"; > > Subject: 6.9. Glibc

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-17 Thread Mike McCarty
Webmaster wrote: > I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the > check failed you can do nothing. Then you do not understand the purpose of testing. I've heard many a manager say more or less the same thing. Mac -- p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,

Re:6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-17 Thread Webmaster
I never "check", because if the check passed it's useless but if the check failed you can do nothing. -- Original -- From: "robert"; Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2011 00:33 AM To: "lfs-support"; Subject: 6.9. Glib

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-16 Thread Andrew Benton
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:29:19 -0500 robert wrote: > What additional info should I post? About 20 lines or so before it _first_ says error. Andy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information pa

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-16 Thread Bruce Dubbs
robert wrote: > cannot get beyond this: > > make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors. > make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.12.1' > make: *** [check] Error 2 > make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) > make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/rt/tst-mqueue

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-16 Thread robert
t; any suggestions? > > Post more info. Did ./configure complain about anything? > > Wait a minute. What chapter of the book are you working in? > If you are in Chapter 5, then you probably shouldn't be > > make check > > if that's what you did. > > Mac w

Re: 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-16 Thread Mike McCarty
robert wrote: > cannot get beyond this: > > make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors. > make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.12.1' > make: *** [check] Error 2 > make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) > make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/rt/tst-mqueue

6.9. Glibc-2.12.1

2011-06-16 Thread robert
cannot get beyond this: make[1]: Target `check' not remade because of errors. make[1]: Leaving directory `/sources/glibc-2.12.1' make: *** [check] Error 2 make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/rt/tst-mqueue5.out] Error 1 make[2]: ***

Re: failure in the posix/annexc test on 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1 on LFS (SVN-20101110)?

2011-01-04 Thread Shawn Dooley
Found this reply at the url below, just wanted to make the response easy to find. http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-support@linuxfromscratch.org/msg14651.html Sometimes it's the host OS and sometimes the HW and sometimes a newer compiler than the tests expect. Generally, they are timing issues a

Re: [LFS 6.7] 6.9 Glibc-2.12.1: make -k check 2>&1 | tee glibc-check-log ? Target `check' not remade because of errors.

2011-01-02 Thread NeoAmsterdam
On 2011/01/02, at 18:41, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > NeoAmsterdam wrote: > >> Here's what ``grep Error glibc-check-log`` had to say: >> >> make[2]: *** [/sources/glibc-build/posix/tst-waitid.out] Error 1 >> make[2]: [/sources/glibc-build/posix/annexc.out] Error 1 (ignored) >> make[1]: ***

[LFS 6.7] 6.9 Glibc-2.12.1: make -k check 2>&1 | tee g libc-check-log → Target `check' not remade bec ause of errors.

2011-01-02 Thread NeoAmsterdam
GUI - This (6.9 Glibc-2.12.1) is the first warning and/or error I've had all build - It happens regardless of optimization and/or parallel v. normal make - And Google may be a friend, but it's not a particularly helpful one Everything's building fine and dandy until Glibc in chapter

Re: LFS 6.7 Section 6.9 glibc-2.12.1 Build Loop in NPTL

2010-12-06 Thread Eliot Gable
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 11:28 PM, Eliot Gable wrote: > > Just like mentioned here: > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lfs.support/31452 > I seem to be stuck in the same build loop in glibc-2.12.1 in Section 6.9 of > LFS version 6.7. Things I have tried: > rm /etc/localtime > ln -s /usr/share/

LFS 6.7 Section 6.9 glibc-2.12.1 Build Loop in NPTL

2010-12-05 Thread Eliot Gable
Just like mentioned here: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lfs.support/31452 I seem to be stuck in the same build loop in glibc-2.12.1 in Section 6.9 of LFS version 6.7. Things I have tried: rm /etc/localtime ln -s /usr/share/zoneinfo

failure in the posix/annexc test on 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1 on LFS (SVN-20101110)?

2010-11-16 Thread Flan Alflani
hello LFS Support List, as mention on chapter 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1 "You will probably see an expected (ignored) failure in the posix/annexc test" so i ignored the failure and continue with the rest of the book. however at the end i got this screen when i boot the new s

Re: failure in the posix/annexc test on 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1 on LFS ?

2010-11-15 Thread Flan Alflani
2010/11/16 littlebat : > On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:13:23 +0300 > Flan Alflani wrote: > >> >> is this something i should worry about or it just simple expected >> (ignored) failure in the posix/annexc test on 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1? >> >> root:/sources/glibc-buil

failure in the posix/annexc test on 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1 on LFS ?

2010-11-15 Thread littlebat
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:13:23 +0300 Flan Alflani wrote: > > is this something i should worry about or it just simple expected > (ignored) failure in the posix/annexc test on 6.9. Glibc-2.12.1? > > root:/sources/glibc-build# grep Error glibc-check-log > make[2]: [/sources