From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40231) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e22Gw-0006Mr-Sj for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:41:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e22Gs-0004Ll-VB for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:41:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:52340) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1e22Gs-0004Ld-Lw for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:41:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1e22Gs-00015u-Ag for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:41:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#28616] disable failing bluez test Resent-Message-ID: From: Marius Bakke In-Reply-To: <20171004.200454.31853833354551300.post@thomasdanckaert.be> References: <20170928.084225.101205341925829279.post@thomasdanckaert.be> <87wp4f9oel.fsf@thomasdanckaert.be> <874lrfew8v.fsf@fastmail.com> <20171004.200454.31853833354551300.post@thomasdanckaert.be> Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:40:39 +0200 Message-ID: <877ew28yw8.fsf@fastmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Thomas Danckaert Cc: 28616@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Thomas Danckaert writes: > From: Marius Bakke > Subject: Re: [bug#28616] disable failing bluez test > Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 23:50:56 +0200 > >> I think we should apply the patch regardless (on 'core-updates'), with a >> link to the upstream discussion. IMO it's more important to be able to >> build from source regardless of hardware, than running this one unit >> test. What do you think? > > I agree. > > I'll push this to core-updates then. On second thought, "bluez" is currently failing on armhf, seemingly due to the original patch: Excerpt: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- CCLD unit/test-gatt XPASS: unit/test-gatt make --no-print-directory all-am ============================================================================ Testsuite summary for bluez 5.47 ============================================================================ # TOTAL: 25 # PASS: 24 # SKIP: 0 # XFAIL: 0 # FAIL: 0 # XPASS: 1 # ERROR: 0 ============================================================================ See ./test-suite.log ============================================================================ make[3]: *** [Makefile:8597: test-suite.log] Error 1 make[2]: *** [Makefile:8705: check-TESTS] Error 2 make[1]: *** [Makefile:9089: check-am] Error 2 make: *** [Makefile:9091: check] Error 2 phase `check' failed after 331.2 seconds --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- XPASS is "unexpected pass" according to . I found the autotools documentation sparse on this, how do we make it skip this test instead of expecting a failure? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlndPlcACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPpacQf+MGWp0Xg+F7CnX/fW2jWzQP8BfwB3rcwkUe8rApAj7Cn4No3Fr/MwtXw5 FLptXoU5duRVc3dziroIS/eiMXKfo3iwgibh4S29b46UkP3CdFj8uUarASJqYS4r D2Gt3nykGj7eRrd0E+IA7T5Qvjtb3TdnqcEHDGStjE6xTGALt9CKMAJrPu9fkniq ktLPO5Pe3L+Iozmlndjhj8m2HcFTatZOx1XO9BIX7ZDe7wx0J08n3JZhF5rNxFxR 69A/lUryQdBmJQ6gXLPTDOi07C2dHKvwdnGWTBCVjG9zkoYdw+e2IvvmtrHPyoPh Rc6CoOCzwVpmfvHKAubdeJYVgFg6Wg== =EYNz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--