Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Linux from Scratch recommends always running "make test" or "make check" after building a package but doesn't give any guidance on how to interpret the results. For example, I have ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Linux Engineer hazel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Harrow, UK
    Posts
    1,217

    How seriously to take check results when building packages?


    Linux from Scratch recommends always running "make test" or "make check" after building a package but doesn't give any guidance on how to interpret the results. For example, I have just built gtk2 and tested it, and one of the tests (on gtk_file_chooser_button) fails. How serious is this kind of thing usually? Is it simply a bug or does it indicate a real problem with my environment? And should I report it upstream?

    PS. Now that I come to think of it, I think I have put this in the wrong forum. Maybe it should be moved to "miscellaneous".
    Last edited by hazel; 12-31-2013 at 12:56 PM.
    "I'm just a little old lady; don't try to dazzle me with jargon!"
    www.hrussman.entadsl.com

  2. #2
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,279
    It will depend on the tests that they have written and how it has failed. What is the output from the failed test?

  3. #3
    Linux Engineer hazel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Harrow, UK
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by gregm View Post
    It will depend on the tests that they have written and how it has failed. What is the output from the failed test?
    TEST: filechooser... (pid=29859)
    Xlib: extension "RANDR" missing on display ":101".
    /GtkFileChooserButton/open-1:
    (/sources/gtk+-2.24.20/gtk/tests/.libs/lt-filechooser:29859):
    Gtk-CRITICAL **: IA__gtk_widget_get_accessible: assertion `GTK_IS_WIDGET
    (widget)' failed
    FAIL
    GTester: last random seed: R02S16bdcea56f6913bf0c0e81f699212e62
    Terminated
    "I'm just a little old lady; don't try to dazzle me with jargon!"
    www.hrussman.entadsl.com

  4. #4
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,279
    It looks like a dependency issue - possibly a bug in gtk as per this: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30806 but it may cause that widget to fail when an app uses it.

    If you don't have xrandr installed you could try installing it and testing again. You could ignore it and see what happens down the road.

  5. #5
    Linux Engineer hazel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Harrow, UK
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by gregm View Post
    It looks like a dependency issue - possibly a bug in gtk as per this: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30806 but it may cause that widget to fail when an app uses it.

    If you don't have xrandr installed you could try installing it and testing again. You could ignore it and see what happens down the road.
    Yes, libXrandr is installed; BLFS sensibly installs the xorg libraries as a group to avoid future problems. But have you noticed the odd display parameter in the message? What on earth is display :101? Like most people, I only have one display, :0. I notice that the messages in the bug report you found have sensible display IDs, not a weird one like this.

    Incidently, the test log (which I recorded) has this warning in several places but only in this one place is there an actual error.
    "I'm just a little old lady; don't try to dazzle me with jargon!"
    www.hrussman.entadsl.com

  6. #6
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    1,279
    It's possible to run multiple X servers - and therefore have different numbers for the display. I would guess that the tests are run on a server started for the purpose and not on the actual display you're using. The server would be killed when the tests are completed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •