Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2012
* "Craig A. Berry" <craig.a.berry@gmail.com> [2012-05-04T11:40:31] > On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Ricardo Signes > > VMS - I see a failure. I don't know what's up. Craig? Anybody? > > [...] > t/porting/podcheck ............................................ > [...] > > The =cut seems fine but the preceding =item doesn't have a blank line > before -- isn't it suposed to? The failure can be fixed with: I'm applying your fix. I agree: it's very strange that it isn't failing everywhere. I don't see why. I'm curious, but not curious enough to spend more time than I just spent, since the fix is clearly an improvement. > [ Module-Build ] > Sadly, these have been around since 5.14.0 and I've just never gotten > back to them. Some of them may go away when I enable preservation of > filename case by default, which I intend to do in 5.17. Ok. > cpan/Module-Metadata/t/metadata ............................... > FAILED at test 114 > > This was a day one failure when the last version came into blead. I > sent a fix upstream six weeks ago but have had no response: > > <https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=76030> I poked the maintainers and will do so again. > dist/Carp/t/Carp .............................................. > FAILED--expected 60 tests, saw 34 > > The test recently started using IPC::Open3::open3, which is not > available on VMS. It has nothing to do with Carp. I could still add > a skip if that's acceptable this late in code freeze. Yes, please. > lib/perl5db ................................................... > [...] > so the line counter is clobbered or not reset or something such that > we get things like "auto(-2)" indicating an impossible negative line > number. I haven't managed to figure out whether it's the test > infrastructure or the debugger itself that has the bug. Odd! I can have a look, but I have no brilliant ideas. Given the "some tests failing since 5.14," my assumption here is that we'd like to apply the fixes for ones where we can, but having some failing tests is at least not /worse/ than 5.14. :( Right? Thanks. -- rjbsThread Previous | Thread Next