From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15135 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2015 00:07:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 35478 Received: (qmail 21037 invoked from network); 16 Jun 2015 00:07:45 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:date:in-reply-to:comments :references:to:subject:mime-version:content-type; bh=B62Xjz3fCmyz3CROJ+5t7yAWb+GrgEV0Y/Bl7MUjrho=; b=CP0iCx0Axt5utRhLxaI2PZfh5WBPCyt47iOKJvmKNJ0Q7buv37fHqEMy6keNFwJ80X TWOXcM9CXMbb0j7b/ZMdR6DIYArfszVd1rMaFVhaas5Ftbt9dQM0R4Jp6Rr9+ek7x8sB 0ABNOyqQ03P91+ZFOC3ccLuNzXzsbEhIyDUnBV8FzRwYoCDjcuCcc82T4xRXGhfZEhQo f9pRuQJk9UfKKTGG9wUofECQartwoN6MsTmBM1pVtF9sLMu4GQO2zRXNIDEPznXf107+ qz5XUwifkjwC77l0ZdZRnFiY0RuSWOuQ1D/02spZ+yEJ1LrUXJD7fDsAK1yCszV4ALEt 8Ufg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk0BVvtoYFw5yS4UQlckPuuMLHH/EFSgFycy0prZAZIePo4Bo/RSuLQCuvGDy/JcLXlnlSK X-Received: by 10.60.157.202 with SMTP id wo10mr26393711oeb.20.1434413261804; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:07:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Bart Schaefer Message-Id: <150615170737.ZM25474@torch.brasslantern.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:07:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20150615105510.GE9963@sym.noone.org> Comments: In reply to Axel Beckert "Re: zpty-related testsuite failures if building in a chroot on a host running systemd 220 as init system" (Jun 15, 12:55pm) References: <20150615105510.GE9963@sym.noone.org> X-Mailer: OpenZMail Classic (0.9.2 24April2005) To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Re: zpty-related testsuite failures if building in a chroot on a host running systemd 220 as init system MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Jun 15, 12:55pm, Axel Beckert wrote: } } On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 10:43:33AM -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote: } > The only viable alternative would be to report the test as "skipped" } > which I guess would be OK for the secondary tests that rely on zpty, } > but not for V08zpty itself. } } Hrm. If I know, I the zpty tests would fail due to the environment, } I'd tend to skip them as I would skip 64-bit-only tests in a 32-bit } environment. How would the test suite know in advance that the test was going to fail? Don't say "by checking for /dev/pts/*" -- that's implementation-specific information that's supposed to be the purview of the openpt() internals. Whether that works is the whole point of running the test.