GNU bug report logs -
#30029
gzip-1.9 released [stable]
Previous Next
Reported by: Michael <aixtools <at> felt.demon.nl>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 18:33:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Done: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 30029 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 30029 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-gzip <at> gnu.org
:
bug#30029
; Package
gzip
.
(Mon, 08 Jan 2018 18:33:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Michael <aixtools <at> felt.demon.nl>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-gzip <at> gnu.org
.
(Mon, 08 Jan 2018 18:33:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 07/01/2018 23:56, Jim Meyering wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> This is to announce gzip-1.9, a stable release.
>
> There have been 53 commits by 2 people in the 89 weeks since 1.8.
> Thanks to Paul Eggert for all of his help.
>
> See the NEWS below for a brief summary.
>
> Thanks to everyone who has contributed!
> The following people contributed changes to this release:
>
> Jim Meyering (28)
> Paul Eggert (25)
>
> Jim [on behalf of the gzip maintainers]
> ==================================================================
>
32-bit results - I package both sizes - in case there is an library
interface. However, applications are only available in 64-bit.
(cc to bug-gzip maillist, have tried subscribing, but no confirmation
mail yet).
============================================================================
Testsuite summary for gzip 1.9
============================================================================
# TOTAL: 21
# PASS: 18
# SKIP: 1
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL: 2
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0
============================================================================
See tests/test-suite.log
Please report to bug-gzip <at> gnu.org
============================================================================
a:
+826 + eval 'env $i zin.gz < $tmp_in > $tmp_out'
+827 ++ env zless zin.gz
+828 /data/prj/gnu/gzip/gzip-1.9/tests/../zless[71]: less: not found
+829 + echo FAIL: zless
+830 FAIL: zless
+831 + fail=1
+891 FAIL: timestamp
+892 ===============
This is to be expected - I expect - with 32-bit timestamp (OBJECT_MODE=32)
64-bit results
============================================================================
Testsuite summary for gzip 1.9
============================================================================
# TOTAL: 21
# PASS: 19
# SKIP: 1
# XFAIL: 0
# FAIL: 1
# XPASS: 0
# ERROR: 0
============================================================================
See tests/test-suite.log
Please report to bug-gzip <at> gnu.org
============================================================================
Again, less is still not installed.
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]
Reply sent
to
Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
:
You have taken responsibility.
(Thu, 31 Mar 2022 23:54:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
Michael <aixtools <at> felt.demon.nl>
:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Thu, 31 Mar 2022 23:54:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #10 received at 30029-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
> +826 + eval 'env $i zin.gz < $tmp_in > $tmp_out'
> +827 ++ env zless zin.gz
> +828 /data/prj/gnu/gzip/gzip-1.9/tests/../zless[71]: less: not found
> +829 + echo FAIL: zless
> +830 FAIL: zless
> +831 + fail=1
Thanks for reporting that. As 'less' is not required by POSIX we
shouldn't assume it's installed. I installed the first attached patch to
fix that (by not installing zless when 'less' is absent), and the second
attached patch to fix a bug I found in the test cases for 'zmore' when I
ran it with PAGER='less'.
q> +891 FAIL: timestamp
> +892 ===============
> This is to be expected - I expect - with 32-bit timestamp (OBJECT_MODE=32)
Yes, we don't worry about people perversely building a 32-bit time_t
gzip on platforms that support 64-bit timestamps.
Recent versions of GNU/Linux have added support for 64-bit time_t even
to platforms where 'long' and pointers are 32 bits.[1] Do recent
versions of AIX have something similar? If so, we should teach Gnulib's
year2038 module[2] how to enable that. This would fix this AIX problem
for several GNU programs, not just gzip.
[1]:
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/64_002dbit-time-symbol-handling.html
[2]:
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnulib/manual/html_node/Avoiding-the-year-2038-problem.html
[0001-zless-install-only-on-platforms-with-less.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
[0002-zmore-don-t-assume-benign-PAGER-in-testing.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
Information forwarded
to
bug-gzip <at> gnu.org
:
bug#30029
; Package
gzip
.
(Sun, 10 Apr 2022 11:09:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #13 received at 30029 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Mär 31 2022, Paul Eggert wrote:
> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac
> index 074d81a..d9c77da 100644
> --- a/configure.ac
> +++ b/configure.ac
> @@ -50,6 +50,8 @@ AC_PROG_CC
> AM_PROG_CC_C_O
> AC_PROG_CPP
> AC_PROG_GREP
> +AC_CHECK_PROG([LESS], [less], [less])
> +AM_CONDITIONAL([LESS], [test "$LESS"])
> AC_CHECK_TOOL([NM], [nm], [nm])
> AC_PROG_LN_S
> AC_PROG_RANLIB
This check is bogus. It tests the build environment, which has nothing
to do with the host environment.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab <at> linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."
Information forwarded
to
bug-gzip <at> gnu.org
:
bug#30029
; Package
gzip
.
(Sun, 10 Apr 2022 15:08:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #16 received at 30029 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 4/10/22 04:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mär 31 2022, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> ...
>> AC_PROG_GREP
>> +AC_CHECK_PROG([LESS], [less], [less])
>> +AM_CONDITIONAL([LESS], [test "$LESS"]) >> ...
> This check is bogus. It tests the build environment, which has nothing
> to do with the host environment.
In other words, it's like AC_PROG_GREP.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gzip <at> gnu.org
:
bug#30029
; Package
gzip
.
(Sun, 10 Apr 2022 18:28:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #19 received at 30029 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Apr 10 2022, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 4/10/22 04:08, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> On Mär 31 2022, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>> ...
>>> AC_PROG_GREP
>>> +AC_CHECK_PROG([LESS], [less], [less])
>>> +AM_CONDITIONAL([LESS], [test "$LESS"]) >> ...
>> This check is bogus. It tests the build environment, which has nothing
>> to do with the host environment.
>
> In other words, it's like AC_PROG_GREP.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab <at> linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."
Information forwarded
to
bug-gzip <at> gnu.org
:
bug#30029
; Package
gzip
.
(Wed, 13 Apr 2022 17:35:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #22 received at 30029 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 4/10/22 11:27, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>> AC_PROG_GREP
>>>> +AC_CHECK_PROG([LESS], [less], [less])
>>>> +AM_CONDITIONAL([LESS], [test "$LESS"]) >> ...
>>> This check is bogus. It tests the build environment, which has nothing
>>> to do with the host environment.
>> In other words, it's like AC_PROG_GREP.
> Two wrongs don't make a right.
I didn't say either was right. However, gzip has used AC_PROG_GREP this
way for a decade with no actual bugs reported, so doing things
differently is low priority.
You're welcome to write a patch. I assume a patch should handle GREP,
LESS, and SHELL (perhaps others; I haven't checked). For consistency,
it'd be helpful to write similar patches for other GNU packages.
Information forwarded
to
bug-gzip <at> gnu.org
:
bug#30029
; Package
gzip
.
(Wed, 13 Apr 2022 17:49:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #25 received at 30029 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On Apr 13 2022, Paul Eggert wrote:
> I didn't say either was right. However, gzip has used AC_PROG_GREP this
> way for a decade with no actual bugs reported,
That doesn't tell anything. It is highly likely to have grep in the
build environment (and it will be in the correct place for a native
build), but to have less installed there is highly *un*likely. Just
because less isn't installed during build (and it is not required for
building in any way) does not mean it is unavailable.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab <at> linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 7578 EB47 D4E5 4D69 2510 2552 DF73 E780 A9DA AEC1
"And now for something completely different."
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Thu, 12 May 2022 11:24:08 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 321 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.