pcp
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Problems in pcp test cases 252, 261, 280 on United Linux 1.0

To: Ken McDonell <kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Problems in pcp test cases 252, 261, 280 on United Linux 1.0
From: "Zhang, Sonic" <sonic.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:00:25 +0800
Cc: "PCP (E-mail)" <pcp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: pcp-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,

        OK. I will figure out if a problem is caused by Linux Platform
before submit it next time.

        Thank you for your patience.

        Sonic Zhang

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken McDonell [mailto:kenmcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 2003?2?19? 11:25
To: Zhang, Sonic
Cc: PCP (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Problems in pcp test cases 252, 261, 280 on United Linux 1.0


On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Zhang, Sonic wrote:

> Hi,
>
>       I tried the pcp test suite v1.1 on United Linux and got some
> failures in case 252, 261, 280.

252     your gawk has become (absurdly, IMHO) picky .. provided
        \. is interpreted as . then I'm not interested in the warning
        ... is there some way to make gawk behave sensibly?

        if not, you'll need this patch

rattle 60% p_rdiff -u 252
--- /usr/tmp/TmpDir.14250867-0/qa/252_1.8       Wed Feb 19 14:12:47 2003
+++ qa/252      Wed Feb 19 13:59:04 2003
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@
     /usr/bin/time $* 2>&1 >/dev/null | \
        if [ "$PCP_PLATFORM" = "linux" ] ; then
            tr ' ' "\n" | $PCP_AWK_PROG '/elapsed$/ { sub("elapsed", "",
$1);
-                                                      split
($1,tt,"[:\.]");
+                                                      split ($1,tt,"[:.]");
                                                       print
(tt[1]*60)+tt[2];}'
        else
            $PCP_AWK_PROG '/^real/ {print $2}' | sed -e 's/\..*//'

261     I can reporoduce this failure case on Red Hat 7.3 locally,
        so I will investigate

280     your ls(1) is producing dates like "1997-01-02 03:04" instead
        of "Jan 2 1997" ... can you make ls(1) behave the way it should
        (again IMHO)


TIme to climb on my soap box ...

    I'm afraid I do not have time to pander to a whole raft of QA
    failures that are not PCP QA "failures" but in my opinion United
    Linux (or indeed any other brand of Linux/Unix) "failures" because
    the distributors, or the contributors are making arbitrary
    decisions to change the way long standing Unix utilities behave
    ...  if you have these problems, then the onus is on those with a
    vested interest in these operating system versions to send me
    patches to fix the PCP QA suite ... if these patches work for IRIX
    and the Linux distribution I care about, I'll take them, otherwise
    I suggest you get your operating system fixed.

    For the cases where there is some suggestion of a genuine PCP
    problem, I will continue to investigate, as in 261 above.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>