Summary: | sys-apps/coreutils-8.10 test failures | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Ryan Hill (RETIRED) <rhill> |
Component: | [OLD] Core system | Assignee: | Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system> |
Status: | RESOLVED DUPLICATE | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | kensington, nikoli |
Priority: | High | Keywords: | TESTFAILURE |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Attachments: |
rm/deep-2.log
misc/pwd-long.log du/long-from-unreadable.log dd/skip-seek-past-dev.log |
Description
Ryan Hill (RETIRED)
2011-02-05 23:00:17 UTC
Created attachment 261613 [details]
rm/deep-2.log
Created attachment 261615 [details]
misc/pwd-long.log
Created attachment 261616 [details]
du/long-from-unreadable.log
Created attachment 261618 [details]
dd/skip-seek-past-dev.log
Not only tests. Emerging any package results in _random_ filling files with \x00 (emerge usually fails, but gstreamer installed with gstreamer-0.10.pc conaining 488 * \x00 chars) net-misc/openssh-5.8_p1 first failed, then installed. Files are zeroed on $PORTAGE_TMPDIR/.../image/ - before merging stage. Portage-alpha19 does the same, and any alpha portage works right on coreutils-8.9. I use 64 bit system (~amd64) with btrfs for root and PORTAGE_TMPDIR. (In reply to comment #5) Same here with btrfs on amd64. I wonder what's triggering this and if there's any error checking that portage can do to avoid installing the resulting broken packages. (In reply to comment #6) > Same here with btrfs on amd64. I wonder what's triggering this and if there's > any error checking that portage can do to avoid installing the resulting broken > packages. > Portage could check if any file installed to /etc does not start with \x00... But we usually trust a filesystem. Apparently new coreutils use some filesystems feature that's just not implemented in btrfs. I'll try to find what is it. Could you mask that new coreutils? All works fine on -8.9. i dont see any relation between these test failures and your description. file a new bug. (In reply to comment #8) > i dont see any relation between these test failures and your description. file > a new bug. Please see bug 353907. same failures in 8.11 i'm going to dupe to a newer one because a bit more triaging has been done there *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 413621 *** |