From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: bug#37605: [core-updates] MariaDB fails tests on armhf-linux Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 10:41:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87r23niq89.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8736g996l2.fsf@devup.no> <87r23r73q5.fsf@devup.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57271) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iHl4G-000232-96 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2019 04:42:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iHl4F-00008Q-38 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2019 04:42:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40632) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iHl4E-000085-WB for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2019 04:42:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iHl4E-0001XE-Rt for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Oct 2019 04:42:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87r23r73q5.fsf@devup.no> (Marius Bakke's message of "Sat, 05 Oct 2019 14:53:54 +0200") 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: Marius Bakke Cc: 37605@debbugs.gnu.org Hi, Marius Bakke skribis: > Marius Bakke writes: > >> "mariadb" consistently fails a single test on the core-updates branch on >> armhf-linux: >> >> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1689172/details >> >> [...] >> >> This does not happen on current 'master', so the problem was introduced >> somewhere in between ccbc1c5eb..cbc8c658d. > > Upstream bug report here: > > https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-20573 > > I'm not sure what to do about it. We could skip it, but then users who > rely on encrypted binary logs could potentially get in trouble. I > haven't found a compile-time flag to disable just this one feature. No idea, let=E2=80=99s see what upstream thinks. If they don=E2=80=99t reply in a timely fashion, we should try and find a w= ay to disable that feature on armhf. Thanks for investigating! Ludo=E2=80=99.