Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 14:38:31 -0400 From: "b.f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, Martin Wilke <miwi@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r319380 - head/math/libtommath Message-ID: <CAGFTUwOQzkDvhkfCdK3SbcKFevphev7Jy1U9uR5HF2k=zG%2BH6Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxgmg-37Oxjh8dOnrqEzHPi2PLpyU33JTUFi9Oo00mMaMbg@mail.gmail.com> References: <201305291541.r4TFf1PO037359@svn.freebsd.org> <CAF6rxg=eK-DR=Bb%2BBo-RJCpdqXeZ=6z%2Bmz7cMf1ZXUqSK%2BbacQ@mail.gmail.com> <A27D5524-1580-4685-AFB6-FE0CF631DBF2@freebsd.org> <CAF6rxgnhNxChnHrJ_tLzBuuHZY0fc9y1=AysSaMV4S4JxjsXhA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGFTUwOVwYcmt%2BzJZLXe7ZjWo%2BV7JCTgEZ0WSaJu%2BVubYn_sOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF6rxgmg-37Oxjh8dOnrqEzHPi2PLpyU33JTUFi9Oo00mMaMbg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/30/13, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 30 May 2013 19:47, b.f. <bf1783@googlemail.com> wrote: >> On 5/30/13, Eitan Adler <eadler@freebsd.org> wrote: >>> On 30 May 2013 03:42, Martin Wilke <miwi@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> On May 30, 2013, at 5:17 AM, Eitan Adler <eadler@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 29 May 2013 17:41, Martin Wilke <miwi@freebsd.org> wrote: >>>>>> Author: miwi >>>>>> Date: Wed May 29 15:41:00 2013 >>>>>> New Revision: 319380 >>>>>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/319380 >>>>>> >>>>>> Log: >>>>>> - Disable regression test >>>>>> >>>>>> Reported by: pointyhat building 2(D)-02:56:27 >>>>> >>>>> This doesn't really explain what happened here. >>>>> Did the regression test fail? Did the tests fail to build? Are there >>>>> no regression tests? >>>>> >>>>> If the tests failed are they false positives, or do they indicate >>>>> actual problems (where the port should be marked BROKEN)? >>>>> >>>> >>>> the regression test hangs without timeout thats why i have disable it. >>>> port it self builds fine no reason to mark it broken. >>> >>> Do the hangs indicate failure of the test program or failure of the >>> actual program? >>> If the latter it should be marked BROKEN. >> >> We don't automatically mark ports as BROKEN if they fail to pass a >> test -- if we did, a great many more ports would be unavailable, >> because most ports don't perform perfectly. Often test failures are >> caused by the conditions in which the tests are run, or are due to >> problems in the testsuite, or represent uncommon or minor problems >> that should ultimately be fixed, but don't render the port useless in >> the meantime. > > Please read what I asked carefully. > > Is the failure an indication of a broken program? > > BROKEN is not used just because a port fails its regression tests but > it isn't reserved just for build failures. Of course it isn't. My point was that even if the test failure indicated a "failure of the actual program", it doesn't necessarily mean that the port should be marked BROKEN, as you seemed to suggest. It depends on the nature of the failure. b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGFTUwOQzkDvhkfCdK3SbcKFevphev7Jy1U9uR5HF2k=zG%2BH6Q>