You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2011/05/30 12:20:31 UTC
[Bug 6609] New: t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Bug #: 6609
Summary: t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Product: Spamassassin
Version: 3.3 SVN branch
Platform: PC
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: Regression Tests
AssignedTo: dev@spamassassin.apache.org
ReportedBy: sidney@sidney.com
Classification: Unclassified
Created attachment 4912
--> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4912
gzipped log of the verbose make test of t/make_install.t
On a Fedora 14 x86_64 I did svn co of branches/3.3 and perl Makfile.PL, make,
and make test.
t/make_install.t failed subtests 2 and 24.
I don't have time to dig into it so I'm attaching the gzipped output of
make test TEST_FILES="t/make_install.t" TEST_VERBOSE=1
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #46 from D. Stussy <so...@kd6lvw.ampr.org> 2011-05-31 18:46:11 UTC ---
Tested 3.3.2-rc2 against Slackware 64-bit 13.1 and did not find the issue in
this bug report. Therefore, no problem here.
I did find other issues (will open as separate bugs). -rc1 has a similar list
of test failures.
Test Summary Report
-------------------
t/duplicates.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 21 Failed: 17) Failed tests: 1-16, 21
t/lang_pl_tests.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 1 Failed: 1) Failed test: 1
t/mimeheader.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 4) Failed tests: 1-4
t/nonspam.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 1 Failed: 1) Failed test: 1
t/originating_ip_hdr.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 9 Failed: 2) Failed tests: 1-2
t/plugin_priorities.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 2) Failed tests: 1-2
t/spamc_optC.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 9 Failed: 1) Failed test: 8
t/spamd_allow_user_rules.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 5 Failed: 1) Failed test: 4
t/spamd_port.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 2) Failed tests: 3-4
t/spamd_unix.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 4 Failed: 2) Failed tests: 3-4
t/whitelist_to.t (Wstat: 0 Tests: 1 Failed: 1) Failed test: 1
Files=165, Tests=2016, 306 wallclock secs ( 0.58 usr 0.11 sys + 30.47 cusr
3.72 csys = 34.88 CPU)
Result: FAIL Failed 11/165 test programs. 34/2016 subtests failed.
RC1-: FAIL Failed 16/165 test programs. 46/2008 subtests failed.
(therefore, getting better....)
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #2 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 12:07:23 UTC ---
I see the same test fail on x86-64 RHEL6. This may well be a side-effect of
the multilib feature of Fedora/RHEL where 32-bit libraries are installed in
/usr/lib and 64-bit libraries are installed in /usr/lib64, and both may be
installed in parallel by the same name but different arch of the RPM packages.
I can say that this test failure is absolutely harmless on Fedora or RHEL. The
test itself may be flawed due to poor assumptions that there will not be paths
like lib64?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #45 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-31 18:43:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #44)
> Wait no...
>
> perl -e 'use Config; print "/foo/" . substr($Config{sitelib},
> length($Config{siteprefix})+1);'
>
> /foo/share/perl5
>
> How is sitelib related to this? That's a noarch dir.
Agreed. He mixed up libs and I glossed over it as well looking for the magic
elixir. Re-closing.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #4 from AXB <ax...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 12:20:30 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > I see the same test fail on x86-64 RHEL6. This may well be a side-effect of
> > the multilib feature of Fedora/RHEL where 32-bit libraries are installed in
> > /usr/lib and 64-bit libraries are installed in /usr/lib64, and both may be
> > installed in parallel by the same name but different arch of the RPM packages.
> >
> > I can say that this test failure is absolutely harmless on Fedora or RHEL. The
> > test itself may be flawed due to poor assumptions that there will not be paths
> > like lib64?
>
> Is there a command line test for 64 bit so perhaps we can do an is_64_bit flag
> and check for -e lib64 if that's the case?
On Centos 5 /RHEL 5
uname -a
Linux host.example.net 2.6.18-194.17.4.el5 #1 SMP Mon Oct 25 15:50:53 EDT 2010
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #29 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 22:35:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Note that "/usr/lib" and /usr/lib64" are not always the same.
> For Slackware 13.1 (64-bit), they are separate directories.
> No symlink.
Could you please run "make test" of the current 3.3 svn branch on 64bit
slackware to verify? After your results I will cut 3.3.2-rc2.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #35 from Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com> 2011-05-31 05:33:18 UTC ---
t/make_install.t isn't in my tarball for 3.3.2-rc2, doesn't look like it's in
MANIFEST.
Trunk is failing that test from svn on FreeBSD 4.11, failing the following
tests:
# Failed test 6 in t/make_install.t at line 89
# Failed test 10 in t/make_install.t at line 98
I didn't do much digging.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #8 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 12:24:29 UTC ---
uname isn't a good test for arch. You need to know from build environment
itself if it is lib or lib64. How is it getting the libdir contents?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #9 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 12:29:16 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> uname isn't a good test for arch. You need to know from build environment
> itself if it is lib or lib64. How is it getting the libdir contents?
If you can't get lib vs. lib64 from the build environment, then you are better
off asking the userspace for the arch than to trust uname. uname may lie to
you because the kernel may not match the userspace arch.
rpm -q rpm --qf '%{arch}'
This asks rpm what is the arch of the rpm package itself. You'll get x86_64
for 64bit, or i[3456]86 for 32bit.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
D. Stussy <so...@kd6lvw.ampr.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |software+spamassassin@kd6lv
| |w.ampr.org
--- Comment #27 from D. Stussy <so...@kd6lvw.ampr.org> 2011-05-30 22:33:10 UTC ---
Note that "/usr/lib" and /usr/lib64" are not always the same.
For Slackware 13.1 (64-bit), they are separate directories.
No symlink.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sidney@sidney.com
--- Comment #15 from Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com> 2011-05-30 13:50:20 UTC ---
Is the lib64 that appears in perl -T -e 'print @INC;' when I do it on my
RedHat or Fedora 64 bit systems testing the same thing as what this bug needs?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #31 from D. Stussy <so...@kd6lvw.ampr.org> 2011-05-30 22:39:12 UTC ---
Since I'm already running 3.3.2-rc1 under Slackware 13.1 64-bit, I can say that
before the patch, there was no issue.
Although there is support for the rpm system, Slackware doesn't use it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|Undefined |3.3.2
Summary|t/make_install.t fails |[review] t/make_install.t
|tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14 |fails tests 2 and 24 on
| |Fedora 14
Status Whiteboard| |needs 2 votes for 3.3
--- Comment #23 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-30 15:18:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #20)
>
> With this patch the fedora machine that was failing t/make_install.t now
> succeeds at it. I didn't re-run any other tests.
Excellent. Thanks to Warren for the idea to use rpm. Will switch to review
status and committing to trunk
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 1129213.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #17 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 14:06:35 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> Is the lib64 that appears in perl -T -e 'print @INC;' when I do it on my
> RedHat or Fedora 64 bit systems testing the same thing as what this bug needs?
Sort of. Unfortunately, I wouldn't trust the INC path because I've seen people
screw it up in the past where it ended up blindly listing paths that do not
exist as the result of misunderstandings.
At the moment, I can't think of a better way to get libdir than from "rpm
--showrc". I *think* that is more guaranteed to reflect reality than other
alternatives.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kmcgrail@pccc.com
--- Comment #1 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-30 11:50:33 UTC ---
Looks similarish to bug 6379. not a duplicate but definitely somehting for
concern.
test 2 is a test for ok -d "$instdir/foo/lib"; and 24 is for ok -e
"$instdir/dest/foo/lib";
So both failed tests here involve lib dirs.
>From a very quick look at your logs, I'm seeing references to lib64 not lib.
What's your exact perl Makefile.PL syntax?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #5 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-30 12:21:19 UTC ---
> uname -a
what does uname -p show?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #12 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 13:02:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created attachment 4913 [details]
> Patch to flag for 64 bit lib checks for RH/FC
>
> For testing, this works on a 32 bit install of RH. Don't have access to a 64
> bit install at the moment. Sidney or Warren, does this pass for you?
Technically testing for "_64" is insufficient because this is a hard-coded
kludge that will work only on x86_64. ppc64 and s390x are other common RH/FC
64bit archs. Less common but in use are sparc64, and arm<something> that have
64bit variants. Some distros call x86_64 "amd64". So we're much better off
figuring out where "lib" vs. "lib64" can be read from the userspace environment
in exactly the same manner that spamassassin's build is inheriting it. This
way we don't have to hard-code every possible 64bit arch name, some of which
may not even exist yet.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |toddr@cpanel.net
--- Comment #38 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-31 15:08:11 UTC ---
*** Bug 6489 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #4914|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #20 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-30 14:22:21 UTC ---
Created attachment 4915
--> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4915
Correct Patch rev2 to flag for 64 bit lib checks for RH/FC
Sorry, wrong patch file previously.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #10 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-30 12:30:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> > uname isn't a good test for arch. You need to know from build environment
> > itself if it is lib or lib64. How is it getting the libdir contents?
>
> If you can't get lib vs. lib64 from the build environment, then you are better
> off asking the userspace for the arch than to trust uname. uname may lie to
> you because the kernel may not match the userspace arch.
>
> rpm -q rpm --qf '%{arch}'
>
> This asks rpm what is the arch of the rpm package itself. You'll get x86_64
> for 64bit, or i[3456]86 for 32bit.
How does a downstream version of redhat solve the issue? Anyone look at an
srpm and see if they have a patch just for this issue before we reinvent the
wheel?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #4913|0 |1
is obsolete| |
--- Comment #16 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-30 13:59:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 4914
--> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4914
Patch rev2 to flag for 64 bit lib checks for RH/FC
This version uses rpm --showrc. Need someone to test it on an 64-bit rpm-based
system.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #26 from Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com> 2011-05-30 22:28:06 UTC ---
+1
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #24 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 21:52:04 UTC ---
> + if ($output =~ /-\d+: _lib(dir)?\t(.*)$/) {
> + if ($2 && $2 =~ /64/) {
> + $x64_bit_lib_test++;
> + }
This works on RHEL6 x86_64, but I would be more comfortable narrowing it. In
retrospect, there is no reason to test both _lib and _libdir. Only one is
fine. And I would be more comfortable explicitly looking for "lib64" instead
of just "64".
Otherwise, +1.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #3 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-30 12:14:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I see the same test fail on x86-64 RHEL6. This may well be a side-effect of
> the multilib feature of Fedora/RHEL where 32-bit libraries are installed in
> /usr/lib and 64-bit libraries are installed in /usr/lib64, and both may be
> installed in parallel by the same name but different arch of the RPM packages.
>
> I can say that this test failure is absolutely harmless on Fedora or RHEL. The
> test itself may be flawed due to poor assumptions that there will not be paths
> like lib64?
Is there a command line test for 64 bit so perhaps we can do an is_64_bit flag
and check for -e lib64 if that's the case?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #37 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-31 14:49:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #36)
> (In reply to comment #35)
> > t/make_install.t isn't in my tarball for 3.3.2-rc2, doesn't look like it's in
> > MANIFEST.
> >
>
> Good catch. This is probably related to why we didn't catch this earlier.
> OTOH, this is not a regression from 3.3.1, so it is not grounds to delay
> 3.3.2's release.
>
> > Trunk is failing that test from svn on FreeBSD 4.11, failing the following
> > tests:
> > # Failed test 6 in t/make_install.t at line 89
> > # Failed test 10 in t/make_install.t at line 98
> >
> > I didn't do much digging.
>
> Please file this as a separate bug? This is clearly something different from
> this multilib issue.
According to MANIFEST.SKIP, make_install.t isn't supposed to be in the
manifest. ^t/make_install\.t$ I wonder if it is a pre-flight test and was
never supposed to go into distributions?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #18 from Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com> 2011-05-30 14:15:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Did you attach the wrong file?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #13 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 13:09:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Technically testing for "_64" is insufficient because this is a hard-coded
> kludge that will work only on x86_64. ppc64 and s390x are other common RH/FC
> 64bit archs. Less common but in use are sparc64, and arm<something> that have
> 64bit variants. Some distros call x86_64 "amd64". So we're much better off
> figuring out where "lib" vs. "lib64" can be read from the userspace environment
> in exactly the same manner that spamassassin's build is inheriting it. This
> way we don't have to hard-code every possible 64bit arch name, some of which
> may not even exist yet.
Found something. Try "rpm --showrc" which dumps all macros. The _lib and
_libdir macro will allow you to differentiate lib and lib64 from the userspace
environment. This will always match the path that spamassassin is inhering
from <somewhere> as libdir. I suppose this would be adequate.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #40 from Todd Rinaldo <to...@cpanel.net> 2011-05-31 16:20:28 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> (In reply to comment #36)
> > (In reply to comment #35)
> > > t/make_install.t isn't in my tarball for 3.3.2-rc2, doesn't look like it's in
> > > MANIFEST.
> > >
> >
> > Good catch. This is probably related to why we didn't catch this earlier.
> > OTOH, this is not a regression from 3.3.1, so it is not grounds to delay
> > 3.3.2's release.
> >
> > > Trunk is failing that test from svn on FreeBSD 4.11, failing the following
> > > tests:
> > > # Failed test 6 in t/make_install.t at line 89
> > > # Failed test 10 in t/make_install.t at line 98
> > >
> > > I didn't do much digging.
> >
> > Please file this as a separate bug? This is clearly something different from
> > this multilib issue.
>
> According to MANIFEST.SKIP, make_install.t isn't supposed to be in the
> manifest. ^t/make_install\.t$ I wonder if it is a pre-flight test and was
> never supposed to go into distributions?
It does sound like an inappropriate function of the spam assassin test suite to
test that make works appropriatley on all systems it installs on. That seems
like a more appropriate test in ExtUtils::MakeMaker
I could definitely see this as a packaging test
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #42 from Darxus <Da...@ChaosReigns.com> 2011-05-31 16:32:38 UTC ---
Sorry, wasn't Mark, maybe it was JM.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/spamassassin/trunk/MANIFEST.SKIP?r1=730843&r2=791132
"don't attempt to package this"
(Found by Herk.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #21 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-30 14:24:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> (In reply to comment #17)
>
> If INC is screwed up in that way, will make install work and should make test
> not fail?
I believe the answer is everything would still work with a messed up INC list.
The INC list is a list of directories perl will check regardless if they exist
or don't exist.
Some perl's, for example, are compiled to allow the INC to include lib dirs for
past versions of Perl so on upgrade, you don't have to reinstall every module.
Regards,
KAM
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
--- Comment #39 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-31 15:08:57 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> *** Bug 6489 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Warren, what do you think of the patch in 6489? Seems potentially more
elegant.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #32 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 22:41:00 UTC ---
Going ahead with 3.3.2-rc2.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #33 from D. Stussy <so...@kd6lvw.ampr.org> 2011-05-30 22:42:45 UTC ---
Even with Slackware's RPM binary, it appears to be picked up correctly:
/bin/rpm --showrc
ARCHITECTURE AND OS:
build arch : x86_64
compatible build archs: x86_64 noarch
build os : Linux
compatible build os's : Linux
install arch : x86_64
install os : Linux
compatible archs : x86_64 amd64 athlon noarch i686 i586 i486 i386 fat
compatible os's : Linux
RPMRC VALUES:
optflags : -O2 -g
...
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #11 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-30 12:49:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 4913
--> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/attachment.cgi?id=4913
Patch to flag for 64 bit lib checks for RH/FC
For testing, this works on a 32 bit install of RH. Don't have access to a 64
bit install at the moment. Sidney or Warren, does this pass for you?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #7 from AXB <ax...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 12:22:26 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> > uname -a
>
> what does uname -p show?
uname -p
x86_64
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #36 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-31 09:28:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #35)
> t/make_install.t isn't in my tarball for 3.3.2-rc2, doesn't look like it's in
> MANIFEST.
>
Good catch. This is probably related to why we didn't catch this earlier.
OTOH, this is not a regression from 3.3.1, so it is not grounds to delay
3.3.2's release.
> Trunk is failing that test from svn on FreeBSD 4.11, failing the following
> tests:
> # Failed test 6 in t/make_install.t at line 89
> # Failed test 10 in t/make_install.t at line 98
>
> I didn't do much digging.
Please file this as a separate bug? This is clearly something different from
this multilib issue.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #19 from Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com> 2011-05-30 14:17:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
If INC is screwed up in that way, will make install work and should make test
not fail?
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Whiteboard|needs 1 vote for 3.3 |
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #43 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-31 18:36:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #39)
> (In reply to comment #38)
> > *** Bug 6489 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>
> Warren, what do you think of the patch in 6489? Seems potentially more
> elegant.
It appears correct. If it tests to work on all distros then lets use it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #22 from Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com> 2011-05-30 15:03:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #20)
With this patch the fedora machine that was failing t/make_install.t now
succeeds at it. I didn't re-run any other tests.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Whiteboard|needs 2 votes for 3.3 |needs 1 vote for 3.3
--- Comment #25 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 22:24:34 UTC ---
Found a potential problem with rpm on Debian systems. rpm --showrc on Debian
64bit says _libdir is /usr/lib64. But /usr/lib64 on Debian is not separate
from /usr/lib, as they symlink each other, so this may not be an issue.
Furthermore, Debian lacks /bin/rpm. It instead exists at /usr/bin/rpm.
So the patch as committed in trunk is good enough. In order to avoid delaying
3.3 by necessitating a new patch and more votes, I vote +1 on Kevin's patch as
committed to trunk.
Need one more vote for 3.3.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #28 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 22:34:44 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #27)
> Note that "/usr/lib" and /usr/lib64" are not always the same.
> For Slackware 13.1 (64-bit), they are separate directories.
> No symlink.
Right, they are different on RH/Fedora, but that isn't an issue here.
Sending t/make_install.t
Transmitting file data .
Committed revision 1129411.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #30 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2011-05-30 22:37:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> (In reply to comment #27)
> > Note that "/usr/lib" and /usr/lib64" are not always the same.
> > For Slackware 13.1 (64-bit), they are separate directories.
> > No symlink.
>
> Right, they are different on RH/Fedora, but that isn't an issue here.
>
> Sending t/make_install.t
> Transmitting file data .
> Committed revision 1129411.
Unless slackware has an rpm binary, the check isn't changed. Though I did fix
some checks that were -e to be -d like they should have been at the bottom.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #44 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-31 18:42:16 UTC ---
Wait no...
perl -e 'use Config; print "/foo/" . substr($Config{sitelib},
length($Config{siteprefix})+1);'
/foo/share/perl5
How is sitelib related to this? That's a noarch dir.
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #34 from Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 23:50:32 UTC ---
Fixed in both trunk and 3.3
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] [review] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora
14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
Darxus <Da...@ChaosReigns.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Darxus@ChaosReigns.com
--- Comment #41 from Darxus <Da...@ChaosReigns.com> 2011-05-31 16:24:19 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> According to MANIFEST.SKIP, make_install.t isn't supposed to be in the
> manifest. ^t/make_install\.t$ I wonder if it is a pre-flight test and was
Mark?
$ svn blame MANIFEST.SKIP | grep make_install
887479 mmartinec ^t/make_install\.t$
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r887479 | mmartinec | 2009-12-04 20:35:04 -0500 (Fri, 04 Dec 2009) | 4 lines
update MANIFEST, bringing back needed files from ./build
(based on MANIFEST.SKIP and MANIFEST from 3.2.5);
update MANIFEST.SKIP, adding missing backslashes and anchors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(From trunk.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
[Bug 6609] t/make_install.t fails tests 2 and 24 on Fedora 14
Posted by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org.
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6609
--- Comment #6 from AXB <ax...@gmail.com> 2011-05-30 12:22:04 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > I see the same test fail on x86-64 RHEL6. This may well be a side-effect of
> > > the multilib feature of Fedora/RHEL where 32-bit libraries are installed in
> > > /usr/lib and 64-bit libraries are installed in /usr/lib64, and both may be
> > > installed in parallel by the same name but different arch of the RPM packages.
> > >
> > > I can say that this test failure is absolutely harmless on Fedora or RHEL. The
> > > test itself may be flawed due to poor assumptions that there will not be paths
> > > like lib64?
> >
> > Is there a command line test for 64 bit so perhaps we can do an is_64_bit flag
> > and check for -e lib64 if that's the case?
>
> On Centos 5 /RHEL 5
>
> uname -a
> Linux host.example.net 2.6.18-194.17.4.el5 #1 SMP Mon Oct 25 15:50:53 EDT 2010
> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
doh:
uname -i
x86_64
--
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.