From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Danny Milosavljevic Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/24] gnu: kwidgetsaddons: Fix test failure. Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 11:14:58 +0200 Message-ID: <20160818111458.7e35afbf@scratchpost.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34262) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1baJPs-0001Jy-EN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 05:15:13 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1baJPo-0005yT-6A for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 05:15:12 -0400 Received: from dd1012.kasserver.com ([85.13.128.8]:50211) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1baJPn-0005ui-V6 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 05:15:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: David Craven Cc: guix-devel > Again since the tests are run in a container, I'd expect that there > isn't a xserver > running unless I explicitly start it. > > Are my assumptions wrong? > Do you think it's worth tracking down the test failure when my solution works? No, if that's the case it's fine to use Xvfb too. It's just that QT_QPA_PLATFORM would be a lot less compute-intensive.