[tor-relays] Compiling tor-0.2.5.3-alpha on Raspberry Pi

[Nick Mathewson]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Oliver Baumann <baumanno at cip.ifi.lmu.de> wrote:
> On 04/24/14, Lance Hathaway wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA512
>>
>> Apologies if this would be better addressed in a different list...
>>
>> I know there are a couple of people here who are working on making the
>> Raspberry Pi a good option for running Tor--and the work is
>> appreciated! Gordon Morehouse has built binary pickages for the Pi,
>> but I wanted to try compiling it myself (for good practice, mostly).
>>
>> I followed the directions for compiling from source on a Debian-based
>> system, but the compile fails with the following:
>>
>> config/parse_bridge_line:
>>   FAIL ../src/test/test_config.c:373: a.b.c.d was supposed to fail,
>> but it didn't.
>>   FAIL ../src/test/test_config.c:374: assert(!bridge_line)
>>   [parse_bridge_line FAILED]
>>
>> ...some log lines skipped for brevity...
>>
>> 1/201 TESTS FAILED. (1 skipped)
>> make[1]: *** [test] Error 1
>> make[1]: Leaving directory
>> `/home/pi/debian-packages/tor-0.2.5.3-alpha/build'
>> dh_auto_test: make -j1 test returned exit code 2
>> make: *** [build] Error 29
>> dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
>> debuild: fatal error at line 1357:
>> dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -us -uc failed
>>
>>
>> I confess, I haven't the slightest clue what to do with this. Have I
>> overlooked something stupid? I don't want to open a "bug" unless it's
>> an honest-to-goodness bug (developers have better things to do with
>> their time than chase down "bugs" which are actually "user errors"),
>> but I don't have the knowledge to say whether this is a bug or not...
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>

I think this is a symptom of bug #10801 and isn't your fault at all.
It can happen when you run the unit tests somewhere with a captive
portal that returns an answer for a DNS lookup of "a.b.c.d".

(In fact, I found #10801 thanks to a coffee shop where the unit tests
didn't pass.)

You can safely ignore this test failure in 0.2.5.3-alpha, and try
0.2.5.4-alpha once it comes out.  (Today, I hope!)

cheers,
-- 
Nick