Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2008
Ken Williams wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Craig A. Berry > <craig.a.berry@gmail.com> wrote: >> After doing some testing with my own revision of the third version of >> this patch against blead, I belatedly realized that much of it has >> already been applied to the development stream of Module::Build, >> available via: >> >> % svn co http://svn.perl.org/modules/Module-Build/trunk mb >> >> which is rather far out of synch with blead. Then there is a separate >> branch of Module::Build that was made up to match what shipped with >> 5.10: <snip> > >> I think it's important that we not apply any more >> patches for M::B to blead until we get things synched up -- the merge >> will just get worse if we put it off. > > I would prefer to not apply any more M::B patches to blead unless > they're integrating from the canonical M::B code. Sometimes the > bleadkeepers are more responsive than I am, though, so that's likely > why patches are routed there first sometimes... Ken, I do not know if you noticed the other thread about Archive::Tar on VMS, but I have found the issue with the ppm.t test. There is a bug in perl/vms or Archive::Tar/vms that is causing the ppm.t test to build a corrupt tarball. I have a hacked Archive::Tar to work around the problem, but I think the problem is really in Perl, and I need to make a small test verify/demonstrate it. With that fixed, the ppm.t test needs changes to not assume a case preserving file system. I have not worked out those changes yet. So we know know how to get Module::Build completely passing on VMS. -John wb8tyw@qsl.net Personal Opinion OnlyThread Previous | Thread Next