Maxim Cournoyer writes:

Hello!

> Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Liliana Marie Prikler writes:
>>
>>> Am Dienstag, dem 18.07.2023 um 16:40 +0200 schrieb Janneke
>>> Nieuwenhuizen:
>>>> * gnu/packages/glib.scm (glib)[arguments]: When building for the
>>>> Hurd,
>>>> set #:tests? to #false.
>>
>> [..]
>>>> +      #:tests? (not (target-hurd?))
>>
>>>> compiled
>>
>>> Instead of disabling tests altogether, can we just disable those that
>>> fail on the Hurd?
>>
>> We probably can, and I have tried to do so in most cases.  However,
>> identifying those tests can be quite time consuming.  I'm not sure how
>> many tests failed here, and note that some tests will hang or crash the
>> Hurd, so if we decide to do this, I would appreciate some help :-)
>>
>> Ludo on the other hand, argued against having more than ~20 (IIRC) test
>> exceptions and using #:tests? #f instead.
>>
>> My idea was to get guix to build natively, and guix pull to work.  Once
>> we get those to work, we can possibly look forward to more contributors
>> to this.
>
> I agree with Liliana that it's nicer to disable just these tests that
> fail, but in light of what you wrote, your approach seems reasonable.

Yes, I agree that if we want to make Hurd better and enabble us to
create a bug report it sure helps if we have more information.

Yesterday I decided to have another look into this.  I have identified
20 tests that TIMEOUT after 600s, and 37 FAIL and instead of setting
#:tests? to #false, I have added them to the `disable-failing-tests'
phase when building on the Hurd.  See attached patch.

Greetings,
Janneke