On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 11:10:13AM -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 4:24 AM, demerphq<demerphq@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2009/7/28 David Favor <david@davidfavor.com>: > >> As an example here's a compile of PPI which works > >> and one which fails. > >> > >> perl-5.10.1-1641 > >> http://davidfavor.com/archive/perl-bug/works.txt > >> > >> perl-5.10.1-1655 > >> http://davidfavor.com/archive/perl-bug/fails.txt > > > > That was a doc patch. Can you try your test again from a few commits earlier? > > Thanks for the report, David, and thanks for testing. After climbing > back into the chair from which I'd fallen and looking up what PPI is, > I realized that nothing "breaks 100s of modules." Something breaks > one module, PPI, which now apparently has pretty basic difficulties > doing its job of parsing other modules. > > As Yves says, narrowing this down further would help (maybe use git > bisect?). You might also look into why on your run with failures, the > manifest checker finds cache files from a previous run: > > Not in MANIFEST: t/data/18_cache/6/64/64568092e7faba16d99fa04706c46517.ppi > Not in MANIFEST: t/data/18_cache/a/ab/abcdef1234567890abcdef1234567890.ppi > > Does clearing those out manually make any difference in the test > failures? Even if it doesn't, the clean targets in PPI may need a > little attention. > > The tests that fail spew a lot of warnings that weren't there before. > Can you follow the clues they give about where the trouble might be > and create a smaller reproducer? > > I'm cc'ing Adam Kennedy, who appears to be the PPI maintainer, in case > he has any advice or insight. Has anyone got any further news on this? -- "Procrastination grows to fill the available time" -- Mitchell's corollary to Parkinson's LawThread Previous | Thread Next