On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:09:34 +0100 Joachim Wieland <joe@mcknight.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:29:36AM +0100, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > >ok, but then we have some hosts in the buildfarm that run the updated
> > >versions like zebra and spoonbill. In this case we can't decide on the
> > >OS version number and cannot provide alternative files. Any idea except for
> > >actively replacing the offending line via sed from the regression script?
>
> > that is incorrect - both zebra(4.0) and spoonbill(3.9) are not affected
> > by this bug - the libc issue in question only affects i386 and m68k with
> > OpenBSD 4.0 and older.
> > So neither Spoonbill (Sparc64) nor Zebra (amd64/x86_64) ever had that issue.
>
> Okay, so it also depends on the platform... In this case I suggest to add
> the special expected/ files only for guppy, i.e. only for
> "i386-unknown-openbsd3.8". If we get another i386 or m68k host that runs one
> of the affected systems, we have to update the check. However, if guppy got
> upgraded to 4.0 we'd have the problem that both guppy and emu would return
> "i386-unknown-openbsd4.0" (while emu is running 4.0-current and hence is
> not affected)...
>
> Attached patch enables the special expected files only for
> "i386-unknown-openbsd3.8".
Ok,
I feel sorry, guppy is causing so much trouble :|
I guess then I'm going to upgrade her only when 4.1-stable comes out (in May).
(i keep having this idea that if we all run current/unstable versions
of our OSes we might overlook other issues ...)
Bye, Chris.
