Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 04:06:14 -0500 From: Steve Wills <swills@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ruby 1.8.7p358 and ruby 1.9.0p125 Message-ID: <4F3F6A06.2080206@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4F3E541D.8060104@FreeBSD.org> References: <4F3DD93E.1090206@FreeBSD.org> <20120216205102.9f590d60.stas@FreeBSD.org> <4F3E541D.8060104@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/17/12 08:20, Steve Wills wrote: > On 02/16/12 23:51, Stanislav Sedov wrote: >> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 23:36:14 -0500 >> Steve Wills <swills@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> If anyone is interested in trying the updated ruby 1.8.7p358 or ruby >>> 1.9.3p125 which were both released today, I have a patch here: >>> >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=165223 >>> >>> Builds fine and passes tests, and as you can see in the PR, there is an >>> exp-run requested for it, but extra testing won't hurt. >>> >> >> Which tests? >> >> Does it pass the rubyspec regression test suite? Did you look at possible >> regression in rubyspec compared to the previous release? >> > > Just the tests that are run by "make test" in the build dir after > building is done. If there's a better way, let me know. > For the record, I finally found these tests and ran them. I had to set sysctl kern.chroot_allow_open_directories=2 to get past the chroot errors, which cleared up a lot of the initial huge batch of failures. Then I ended up with this for 1.9.3p125: 3483 files, 18247 examples, 153913 expectations, 0 failures, 37 errors as compared to the results for 1.9.3p0: 3483 files, 18231 examples, 154206 expectations, 0 failures, 37 errors So I think it seems OK. Haven't looked at 1.8.7p358 yet, but it's a much smaller change set so I'm much less worried about it. Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F3F6A06.2080206>