Summary: | dev-libs/glib-2.30.{2,3} runs ipv6 test despite no ipv6 is available | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Dustin Polke <DuPol> |
Component: | [OLD] GNOME | Assignee: | Gentoo Linux Gnome Desktop Team <gnome> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | mattst88, nikoli, phajdan.jr, toralf |
Priority: | Normal | Keywords: | TESTFAILURE |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=667468 | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Dustin Polke
2011-12-30 09:57:45 UTC
This should probably be reported to upstream also I think we have a report that looks like this already. Can't remember the # though. I'd prefer packages like this to pass tests. How about just disabling the ipv6 test meanwhile? (In reply to comment #3) > I'd prefer packages like this to pass tests. How about just disabling the ipv6 > test meanwhile? It passes tests when ipv6 support is there, then, I see no sense on this blocking its stabilization (In reply to comment #2) > I think we have a report that looks like this already. Can't remember the # > though. I also think this one, or similar, was reported before... but have failed to find the bug :S *** Bug 398945 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Maybe we should skip all ipv4/ipv6 tests in next bump :-/ This is still present in dev-libs/glib-2.30.3 Still present in glib-2.32.4. Do you guys run the test suite ...? The code in socket.c looks like g_test_add_func ("/socket/ipv6_async", test_ipv6_async); #if defined (IPPROTO_IPV6) && defined (IPV6_V6ONLY) g_test_add_func ("/socket/ipv6_v4mapped", test_ipv6_v4mapped); #endif That looks like a fuck-up. (In reply to comment #8) > Still present in glib-2.32.4. > > Do you guys run the test suite ...? I run, but I also have ipv6 enabled :S *** Bug 461998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** fixed in 2.36.1 2.36.1 is hard masked. Should not you keep this bug open until it is unmasked and add PMASKED to keywords? I don't see the advantage of keeping the bug opened some more weeks simply to close it a bit later :/ If the problem would be more important... |