test-mq on FreeBSD

[Adrian Buehlmann]

On 28.05.2008 16:56, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 04:05:18PM +0200, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
> 
>> On 28.05.2008 15:22, Maxim Dounin wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 02:59:02PM +0200, Adrian Buehlmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just a minor point. When running the testsuite on FreeBSD 6.2, I always get:
>>>>
>>>> ERROR: test-mq output changed
>>>> --- Expected output
>>>> +++ Test output
>>>> @@ -499,7 +499,7 @@
>>>> abort: local changes found, refresh first
>>>> % apply force, should not discard changes with empty patch
>>>> applying empty
>>>> -/usr/bin/patch: **** Only garbage was found in the patch input.
>>>> +patch: **** Only garbage was found in the patch input.
>>>> patch failed, unable to continue (try -v)
>>>> patch empty is empty
>>>> Now at: empty
>>>>
>>>> Could we agree on using that output on all unixes by doing
>>>> the patch below?
>>> Hmm, looks like you patch isn't FreeBSD native /usr/bin/patch.  
>>> :-)
>> I don't understand you here. I simply do
>>
>> %python run-tests.py test-mq
>>
>> using crew tip and get that annoying changed output I posted.
> 
> Yes.  But the output you get are from gnu patch, not from
> /usr/bin/patch (it's normal - Mercurial uses gpatch instead of 
> patch if it's here).  Without gnu patch on you system you will get 
> another output (I posted it in previous message).

Ah. Thanks for that info. If it helps, I don't mind requiring FreeBSD users
wanting to run the testsuite having to install gnu patch.

For example, I also have to use gmake (not make) to build on
FreeBSD.

> [...]
>> I don't even understand what the implementation of that hg command
>> is calling here. All I can say is that obviously on my system, that
>> command seems *not* to prepend its install path in the error output.
>>
>> It's the only test that fails on FreeBSD 6.2. All I would appreciate to
>> have changed is not to have to repeatedly stumble upon that output
>> each time I run the testsuite.
>>
>> Since I do not have another unused computer, installing a linux/ubuntu/
>> debian/whatever is not an option for me and wouldn't be worth wasting
>> time for me anyway.
>>
>> But as I said, it's only a minor problem. If my proposal is causing
>> other problems, then ignore it.
> 
> It isn't, but it does solve the problem only for your specific 
> installation.  The patch I suggest just a bit more generic and 
> should fix all such problems.

Ok. You might want to ask on irc about the status of your patch.
Doing so has proven to be helpful in the past.