Bug 407151 - ntfsprogs fails tests on ppc
Summary: ntfsprogs fails tests on ppc
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: ntfsprogs
Version: rawhide
Hardware: powerpc
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom "spot" Callaway
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: F-ExcludeArch-ppc
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-12-01 03:10 UTC by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2012-01-13 19:23 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-01-13 19:23:51 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2007-12-01 03:10:59 UTC
Description of problem:

ntfsprogs fails its tests on ppc:

+ make test
(cd libntfs && make libs) || exit 1;
make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ntfsprogs-2.0.0/libntfs'
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `libs'.
make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ntfsprogs-2.0.0/libntfs'
(cd test && make all test) || exit 1;
make[1]: Entering directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ntfsprogs-2.0.0/test'
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
Files runlist-data/zero and zero are identical
Files runlist-data/pure-cs and pure-cs are identical
Files runlist-data/pure-cm and pure-cm are identical
Files runlist-data/pure-ns and pure-ns are identical
Files runlist-data/pure-nm and pure-nm are identical
Files runlist-data/frag123 and frag123 differ
Files runlist-data/frag132 and frag132 differ
Files runlist-data/frag213 and frag213 differ
Files runlist-data/frag231 and frag231 differ
Files runlist-data/frag312 and frag312 differ
Files runlist-data/frag321 and frag321 differ
make[1]: *** [testf] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ntfsprogs-2.0.0/test'
make: *** [test] Error 1
error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.31445 (%check)

I'm setting excludearch here, as I doubt there is a lot of interest in ntfs on ppc.

Comment 1 Tom "spot" Callaway 2007-12-01 03:11:28 UTC
Note that this is only applicable to 2.0.0 in rawhide.

Comment 2 David Woodhouse 2008-01-31 06:45:13 UTC
Is the problem reported upstream?

Comment 3 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-01-31 16:31:00 UTC
Upstream has no formal bug tracking mechanism, so I've posted it to their "bug


Comment 4 Bug Zapper 2008-05-14 04:04:14 UTC
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA.
More information and reason for this action is here:

Comment 5 Bug Zapper 2009-06-09 23:14:50 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 9.  It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.  At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '9'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life.  If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this 
bug to the applicable version.  If you are unable to change the version, 
please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events.  Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 

Comment 6 Phil Knirsch 2012-01-13 19:23:51 UTC
Closing bug due to inactivity and ntfsprogs is marked as dead by now.

Thanks & regards, Phil

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.