[blfs-support] Error when testing sudo-1.8.1p3 in BLFS7.6-systemd

hazeldebian@googlemail hazeldebian at googlemail.com
Sun Aug 23 23:02:40 PDT 2015


On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 00:17:39 +0100
Ken Moffat <zarniwhoop at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 09:29:13PM +0100, hazeldebian at googlemail wrote:
> > I get one failed test as follows:
> > < testsudoers/test1: FAIL
> > 2a2,8
> > >
> > > Entries for user root:
> > >
> > > ALL = ALL
> > >       host matched
> > >
> > > Command unmatched
> > 
> > Is this significant, or can I safely install?
> > 
> Hi hazel,
> 
> I think almost everybody ignores tests.  Surely a bigger question is
> "why use such an old version?".  I don't pay a lot of attention to
> vulnerabilities in sudo (user ken tends to be as dangerous as root
> in trashing my systems :) but I think I remember at least some
> "corner cases".  If you are installing a non-DE non-toolkit package
> then you should be fine to use the current version.
> 
> For tests, I'm sure that they passed for whoever commited that
> version to one of the books.  But I've seen so-many oddities in
> tests that I normally do not run them.  For a *very few* packages I
> run tests in my normal builds.
> 
> If you are familiar with a particular package, and its tests
> currently work for you, and you want to contribute bug reports to
> upstream, then please disregard the above (apart from starting with
> the current version).
> 
> Ken
> -- 
> This one goes up to eleven: but only on a clear day, with the wind in
> the right direction.

I used that version because it's in the book! I always follow the book religiously. But it's LFS-systemd and that currently stands at 7.6, so all the packages are older than for standard LFS. I'm using systemd because this is an old laptop and I want the faster boot that systemd provides.

Oddly enough, the package does test out successfully when built on my main machine with the same configuration.

A wider point: if the tests aren't necessary except for really fundamental compilation tools like gcc, why are they included without any qualification? There is a discussion of why you probably shouldn't bother to test your intermediate tools but none at all about the final software. It just says "make", "make check", "make install". So that's what I do.
-- 

H Russman


More information about the blfs-support mailing list