Tim Peters <tim.one@comcast.net> writes: > It's been running a long time, and unittest doesn't show what's wrong before > it's all done (and it's not done yet, so no clue here). Maybe it's shallow. > Plain test_bsddb passes. I suggest not to worry about this too much. I get the impression that the bsddb3 test suite is quite harsh, and that it makes assumptions (e.g. about how threads interleave) that hold only on the system of the author of the test. It also seems that once a test failed in an unpredicted manner (e.g. by not giving back a lock it holds), subsequent tests will fail. I have settled to wait for user cooperation, here: the "plain" bsddb modus seems to work fine, the problems only occur if you use advanced features like locking and transactions. If people stumble over it, some may contribute patches for 2.3.1. Before someone complains about this attitude: I do believe that there ain't any backward compatibility issues with those bugs, i.e. code that used to work with 2.2 will continue to work. You have to deliberately make use of the new features to run into the new bugs. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4