More cleverer QA config needed? (was Re: [pcp] NSS/NSPR Testing Status)

[Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
> Hi Dave,
> 
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > ...
> > As of commit e110b05e44b0678d9ba632ab5896ccc7e50c3cf6 (pcpfans
> > brolley/nssmerge), I am down to two differences in the qa test
> > results when running with NSS/NSPR enabled as opposed to without.
> > 

Also, are you seeing this one fail Dave ... (nssmerge branch)?

[4%] 024 4s ... - output mismatch (see 024.out.bad)
2a3,4
> __pmSetDataIPC: fd=<n> data=0xf83890
> IPC table fd(PDU version):
21a24,25
> __pmSetDataIPC: fd=<n> data=0x164c890
> IPC table fd(PDU version):
40a45,46
> __pmSetDataIPC: fd=<n> data=0x944890
> IPC table fd(PDU version):
51a58,59
> __pmSetDataIPC: fd=<n> data=0x944410
> IPC table fd(PDU version): <n>(2,1)
66a75,76
> __pmSetDataIPC: fd=<n> data=0xbed890
> IPC table fd(PDU version):
77a88,89
> __pmSetDataIPC: fd=<n> data=0xbed410
> IPC table fd(PDU version): <n>(2,1)
94a107,108
> __pmSetDataIPC: fd=<n> data=0x1b655f0
> IPC table fd(PDU version):


I'd expect that to be on a new-fail list?  Needs treatment like
041 got recently.

This actually raises another interesting twist on the QA config
issue - this passes for me with some PCP_VER_3611 variants (ie.
built --without-secure-sockets) but fails otherwise.  Suggests
we need to consider doing something more sophisticated for the
QA tests with NSS/NSPR dependencies - pkg-config(1) for PCP?

cheers.

--
Nathan