From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Giovanni Biscuolo Subject: bug#35521: Mariadb test suite failures on x86_64-linux Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 10:02:29 +0200 Message-ID: <87blxzu1d6.fsf@roquette.mug.biscuolo.net> References: <87tveemt19.fsf@netris.org> <87tveemt19.fsf@netris.org> <87h8aemrow.fsf@netris.org> <87pnmil8dq.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <87wogpn6f7.fsf@devup.no> <87ef2xlgmb.fsf@netris.org> <87ftncqq8r.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46827) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hlqWE-0001p8-So for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 04:03:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hlqWD-000152-VE for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 04:03:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58644) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hlqWD-00014w-S5 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 04:03:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hlqWD-0004nI-O3 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 04:03:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87ftncqq8r.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Mark H Weaver Cc: 35521@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, for what it counts I=20 Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: [...] >> I'm concerned by how frequently and casually we simply disable failing >> tests. I disagree here: disabling in Guix tests is _never_ done casually AFAIS (as far as I see) but always ponderated and discussed, like in this case ;-) [...] > I think disabling specific tests is the least bad of these options. Also: automated software testing is better than nothing but... who test tests? *Sometime* it happens that tests introduces "collateral test bugs" that have nothing to do with actual software issues, including secutiry ones. So IMHO neither upstream nor us should "blindly obey" to tests and disable proved unreliable ones :-D More on this specific issue in my next repy... :-) [...] Happy hacking! Gio' =2D-=20 Giovanni Biscuolo Xelera IT Infrastructures --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEERcxjuFJYydVfNLI5030Op87MORIFAl0oPpUACgkQ030Op87M ORJZ6A//eSJcDaXg0EVnRkncY6mlGaA383z3PgGM7Pj4ZTb2YYtZp3djpv0rLIHs Lm9MnmVPDJfwo02Q083KODYiTMHZHrDo2ItXRGp7dQ4a1g2aTFQEh+V4mtXNY/B6 EMEZQx8W7+2bnPC78QHTpMV2MCHQ/iDUeBKP4Zd/rDSmvHYZj9n2ehwVT2zoxjLY 8B8gpVJCxkFYSJ31MEjB9D11LeWohAzwW+hUP98tWz7UPFWuP1Qm6F1kubPuVkvd wj1NkEXgviIriy9Tlgur6MXWjIzIkreo1EYK2Nou17fWUHcdi2txF+zVVf38a9OP l1PaGQTYYNj3C3PEEyAMbXN5qnoynXPcQ+rapjc7yCQiYsSwIptnOh4pVcHgom7w rte25SnDbL159dwSfQrcgtX6ykaK+0PMo/Ujejuo0f5gPRnuIJemd1u4ipDUkU2g 2yLnVRBJe7dpt4d3HnFviPYL60PnXTFSbCarhHgX8sSEXNgBAvaaMjlJ0REqxuCy QdBrbvBnFwbDwqkpu3/TBpj0RG00FHFCpvRRlip4oc+8AYMAGkI745WCtrDgx5WT JiqtONuObRJ835cCBCUL1qi18DDRPb3wCDP2K/ZgWoW0+GAZGOGWI6NIsiROgytU Hz0BYLs1G4xckcroBJX2RGtLWwv2204CS6PgwQKGL+vab840myk= =ZVVm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--