Re: interpreting make check results?

[Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>]

On 7/14/05, Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 15:24 -0400, Luis Villa wrote:
> > So, I turned on make check in tinderbox today, and I'm learning all
> > kinds of 'exciting' things. :) gtk+'s excitement today:
> >
> > make[4]: Entering directory `/home/bb/microtinder/cvs/gtk+/gtk'
> > --- expected-abi      2005-07-14 15:19:22.737194592 -0400
> > +++ actual-abi        2005-07-14 15:19:26.800576864 -0400
> > @@ -2423,6 +2423,7 @@
> >  gtk_tree_row_reference_copy
> >  gtk_tree_row_reference_deleted
> >  gtk_tree_row_reference_free
> > +gtk_tree_row_reference_get_model
> >  gtk_tree_row_reference_get_path
> >  gtk_tree_row_reference_get_type
> >  gtk_tree_row_reference_inserted
> > @@ -2521,6 +2522,7 @@
> >  gtk_tree_view_column_new_with_attributes
> >  gtk_tree_view_column_pack_end
> >  gtk_tree_view_column_pack_start
> > +gtk_tree_view_column_queue_resize
> >  gtk_tree_view_columns_autosize
> >  gtk_tree_view_column_set_alignment
> >  gtk_tree_view_column_set_attributes
> > @@ -2573,6 +2575,7 @@
> >  gtk_tree_view_get_selection
> >  gtk_tree_view_get_type
> >  gtk_tree_view_get_vadjustment
> > +gtk_tree_view_get_visible_range
> >  gtk_tree_view_get_visible_rect
> >  gtk_tree_view_insert_column
> >  gtk_tree_view_insert_column_with_attributes
> > FAIL: abicheck.sh
> > =======================================================================
> > 1 of 1 tests failed
> > Please report to http://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=gtk%2B
> > =======================================================================
> >
> > What does this mean, exactly? Should i|tinderbox be ignoring it?
> > reporting it religiously as a bug? Should it be expected to happen on
> > a semi-regular basis?
> 
> These indicate that someone added public functions and forgot to update
> gtk.symbols.

OK, so there is an expectation that this will always work.

<snip explanation>

> These failures tend to get caught when we do 'make distcheck', but
> filing them would still be appreciated ... if we regularly thwap people
> who don't update gtk.symbols, hopefully we can avoid having problems
> like this very often.

OK, sounds like a plan. Will do. Is someone fixing this one or should
I file now?

Luis