On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 20:24 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Svante Signell wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 08:20:55PM CEST:
> > On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 20:06 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > > --- libtool-2.4/tests/cmdline_wrap.at.orig	2010-05-20 23:18:41.000000000 +0200
> > > > +++ libtool-2.4/tests/cmdline_wrap.at	2011-02-06 11:08:29.000000000 +0100
> > > > @@ -30,6 +30,9 @@
> 
> > > > +# Setting low max_cmd_len on "hurd-386" does not make sense"
> > > > +AT_CHECK([if test "$host_os" == "gnu" ; then exit 77; fi])
> > > 
> > > Please use = not ==, the former is Posix test, the latter bash-specific.
> > 
> > OK, do you want me to send an update?
>
> I can't speak for Kurt, I only help maintain upstream.  ;-)

Updated!

> > > Does this test actually fail on hurd-i386, or is this just because you
> > > consider it wasted time?  In the former case, please send the patch
> > > upstream but also show a cut-n-paste of the failing test log.
> > 
> > Yes, this test fails without the patch. I'll build an unpatched version
> > and submit the failing test log. BTW: Where is upstream, is
> > bug-libtool@gnu.org sufficient?
> 
> Sure, but you can just as well send a patch right to libtool-patches
> (first-post moderation, but subscribing is not required).

I tried libtool-patches, but I had to register to be able to submit
there. Comments are embedded in the patches.

The test fails without the patch, see below (partial info I found in the
tests/testsuite.log file on test 112):

(where to find the complete log if this test, in
tests/testsuite.dir/112/testsuite.lo or
tests/testsuite.dir/112/tests/testsuite.dir/testsuilt.log? Both files
are very large)

 112: cmdline_wrap.at:28 Run tests with low max_cmd_len
      recursive
112. cmdline_wrap.at:28: testing ...
./cmdline_wrap.at:43: $CONFIG_SHELL $abs_srcdir/testsuite -k libtool
$INNER_TESTSUITEFLAGS
stderr:
ERROR: 43 tests were run,
4 failed (3 expected failures).
10 tests were skipped.