I've rewritten 216 (attached).
I now need to enlist the assistance of the distributed PCP QA pixies
network to give me some feedback.
If you're able, please run this in a QA environment,
check 216
and send me (a) mail if it works indicating the sort of Linux system
you're on, else (b) the same info as (a) for a failure, plus 216.out.bad
and 216.full.
Thanks.
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 10:53 -0500, Martin Hicks wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 08:17:04AM +1100, Ken McDonell wrote:
> > Can you send me the 216.full file ... I'll tweak the test accordingly?
> >
> > I think 600 is one of those problematic ones ... send me the output from
> >
> > ls -l 600*
> >
> > and the 600.full file and I'll see if I can sort it out. The logic in
> > 600 for picking which is the expected outcome is very convoluted ... the
> > fact that we have FOUR possible linux output files gives some indication
> > of the mess we're trying to untangle.
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/~mort/216.full
> http://oss.sgi.com/~mort/600.full
216
Description: application/shellscript
|