Dne 07. 08. 24 v 16:19 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 07. 08. 24 v 16:06 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):Dne 07. 08. 24 v 15:20 Tom Hughes via devel napsal(a):On 07/08/2024 12:54, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 01:09:01PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:With new RPM, I hit the limit in two packages: https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-abrt https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/rubygem-pgIs it RPM, or is it "rspec"? Seems to be some sort of Ruby tool.The first one is something I assume the test is doing... Perhaps these ones using deliberately silly paths?https://github.com/voxik/abrt-ruby/blob/5cd42e6cf6024e80cdccdf8c3ba2128f2717ab69/spec/abrt_handler_spec.rb#L122The second one is less clear - it doesn't seem to be using the %postgresql_tests_run macro to start a postgres server for testing so I assume the ruby tests are starting one themselves but in a directory that has a long enough name that the socket name is too long?Yes, this is good analysis. It can hardly be expected that upstream test suite could leverage `%postgresql_tests_run` macroLooking closer at the macro, maybe I should give it try.
That does not really help. It would help with the "random PG port", but the DB settings for the test suite is too specific. If the env variables set by the macro were upstreamed in Postgres, that would likely be different discussion.
Vít
VítI think the 107 bytes limitation is much sillier then the paths above. Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
