On Mon Sep 21 15:28:01 2009, jk...@verizon.net wrote:
So, unless there is some strong objection, I will close this ticket
within 7 days.
No one spoke up for this; rejecting ticket.
On Tue Sep 22 10:39:17 2009, fperrad wrote:
FYI, some existing tools (but not Perl)
- FIT : http://fit.c2.com/
- FitNesse Slim : http://fitnesse.org/
François,
Thanks for the reference. If someone wants to examine these links and
open a TT, they are welcome to do so.
In the meantime,
This ticket has been open for more than two-and-a-half years -- solely
on the basis of an ancient inline comment. In that time no one has
produced any evidence that we are doing the wrong thing. Given how many
of our developers are currently working on AMD64, I would have expected
that by now
On Wed Sep 16 05:49:12 2009, cognominal wrote:
the report is not relevant anymore. you can close the ticket. Thx
Closing.
On Wed Feb 25 16:08:29 2009, jk...@verizon.net wrote:
On Thu Jan 29 06:15:28 2009, Whiteknight wrote:
has the remove_pic branch landed yet?
Well, it's still an active branch in SVN. So I would guess not.
Per discussion on the mailing list, we're removing the remove_pic branch
On Tue May 12 05:18:47 2009, jk...@verizon.net wrote:
Here's an update based on a recent Smolder report
Thanks to a steady stream of Smolder reports from 'sm...@pc42.my.domain'
-- I don't know who the human there is -- performed on OpenBSD/amd64, we
can see that we are passing all non-SKIPped
This ticket has been moved into the Trac system:
https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/ticket/854. Please continue the
discussion there.
Thank you very much.
kid51
This ticket addressed a variety of issues why may or may not still be
apropos. However, I suspect that the specific approach to
install-related problems suggested in the ticket will be superseded by
the work done on such issues in the last month.
Would it be possible to review this ticket and
There's been a lot of water under the bridge since this test failure
report was originally filed. So we would undoubtedly need new reports
to go forward.
I'm going to close this ticket and encourage people with access to
NexentaOS (GNU/OpenSolaris) to configure and build Parrot from HEAD and
to
This ticket has been moved into the Trac system at
https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/ticket/857.
Please continue the discussion there. Thank you very much.
kid51
Although I cannot be sure that the issues which were cited in the
original post to this RT have been cleared up, I note that there has
been no follow-up discussion in eight months.
So I'm going to resolve this ticket and encourage any new LANG-related
failures to be reported in new tickets in our
On Mon Dec 01 11:39:33 2008, pmichaud wrote:
... how exactly does one use Cexception;death, Cexception;exit,
and the other exception types from PIR? I see them mentioned throughout
pdd23, but I've never actually seen an example of how these constants
(are they constants?) might appear in
On Sun Jul 19 18:22:00 2009, tene wrote:
This still hasn't been done. I've been thinking about this again
recently, and I'll try to move it higher in my TODO list. I have a lot
of exceptions cleanups that I still need to document and/or do.
At Tene's suggestion, I am consolidating this
On Sun Jul 19 18:27:29 2009, tene wrote:
Parrot still doesn't have a hierarchy of exception types.
exception;death doesn't exist. This is the same as rt#36261. I
recommend that both of these tickets be merged into a single TT.
At Tene's suggestion, I am consolidating this ticket with one
The discussion in this ticket appears to have petered out in June 2006.
The state of any efforts to work on it is unclear.
This RT was mentioned by Whiteknight on his blog on July 17 2009:
Likewise, Ticket #38146 discusses the creation of a file copying
utility, although discussion there has
I have moved this ticket to the Trac system:
https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/ticket/850. Please continue discussion
there.
Thank you very much.
kid51
No objections heard. Resolving ticket.
Rejected, and ticket resolved, in r38996.
kid51
Rejected, and ticket resolved, in r38997.
kid51
On Sat May 09 19:40:51 2009, jk...@verizon.net wrote:
In the course of working on RT 43683, I came across the inline comment
which was the pretext for creating this ticket in the first place. It
was not removed when the ticket was rejected. And since I was doing
some refactoring for the
On Sun Mar 22 06:09:15 2009, jk...@verizon.net wrote:
On Mon Mar 19 15:43:27 2007, particle wrote:
there's a number of scripts and utilities in the tools/ subtree which
i suspect have gone unused for some time now. this ticket is a
placeholder to track efforts on surveying and fixing the
Here's an update based on a recent Smolder report
(http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/report_details/21469);
veracity.t: passing
arithmetics.t:
ok 7 - negate -0.0 # TODO -0.0 not implemented, TT #313 : still not passing
(Why is this showing up yellow rather than green on the
I've been staring at this ticket for more than a year. One of my
earlier patches got us part of the way there. Applying Reini's or
something like that would get us closer.
But the more I look at this problem in light of
https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/ticket/586,
See also discussion in https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/ticket/658.
On Fri Apr 17 13:27:36 2009, cotto wrote:
make html works fine, as far as I can tell. Is there any reason why
this ticket can't be rejected?
No. Deleted those two comments in r38663. Marking ticket rejected.
kid51
On Fri Apr 17 13:29:57 2009, cotto wrote:
On Fri Apr 17 13:24:13 2009, julianalbo wrote:
I propose rejecting this ticket as unnecessary. The code may not be
optimal, but it works fine and isn't even particularly hacky or
broken.
+1
rejected!
In the course of working on RT
On Tue Jul 10 05:13:07 2007, pcoch wrote:
In the file lib/Parrot/Docs/Item.pm there is the todo item:
# TODO - Items should only contain paths
This restriction needs to be implemented.
Why? Can anyone say?
I doubt it, if only because I doubt that anyone understands the
On Tue Jul 10 05:04:48 2007, pcoch wrote:
In lib/Parrot/Docs/Group.pm there is the todo item:
# TODO - Groups should only contain items or paths.
This restriction needs to be implemented.
Why? Can anyone say?
I doubt it, if only because I doubt that anyone understands the
In r38498, applied patch supplied by Michael Peters. See also:
https://trac.parrot.org/parrot/wiki/SmolderTaskList.
On Fri May 01 13:16:13 2009, coke wrote:
What I meant was, I'll apply this in a few days (sometime this weekend)
UNLESS I hear back from other darwin developers with complaints.
I tried the suggested deletion. It caused no problems for me on
Darwin/PPC. So +1 on the change.
kid51
On Sun Mar 18 08:23:45 2007, codermattie wrote:
Hello,
In the course of testing the parrot-0.4.9 release I discovered a
number of files installed by the reallyinstall target that
don't belong in an install image.
To understand the output Configure.pl was called with:
--prefix=/usr ,
The 'reallyinstall' target is gone, so we can resolve this ticket.
On Tue Apr 21 05:36:53 2009, bacek wrote:
On Sun Aug 24 08:06:29 2008, jk...@verizon.net wrote:
There is no more tools/dev/ops_renum.mak. Can we close this ticket?
The only reason I did not previously close it was Coke's expression of a
desire to pull this into the main Makefile. But I'll
On Sat Dec 27 20:56:38 2008, rgrjr wrote:
When updating an old working copy, I just happened to notice that
parrot-config was deleted since June. So was able to find this:
r28977 | chromatic | 2008-07-02 21:42:27 -0400 (Wed, 02 Jul 2008)
| 2 lines
[parrot-config] Turned
Ovid:
I'm going to merge this RT into the one we already have open reporting
the same failure on Darwin/PPC. I believe the problem occurred in
r33324. I think chromatic is looking into this.
Thank you for your report.
kid51
On Wed Nov 26 13:18:57 2008, coke wrote:
The only remaining instance in branch that I'm not sure how to resolve
is
t/configure/034-step.t
Jim - if you could take a look at that usage of miniparrot and either
bless it or remove it, that'd be very helpful. (I can't tell if it's
On Mon Nov 24 13:45:03 2008, coke wrote:
I'm satisfied that the original request is resolved. There's a lot of
discussion further down in the ticket which I /think/ can be shelved
until whenever config is looked at down the road.
Agreed. I will take the ticket now and close it in a
Moritz confirmed that a related ticket is passing for him, so I'm
stealing this ticket and marking it Resolved.
kid51
On Thu Oct 25 08:18:13 2007, pcoch wrote:
In t/perl/Parrot_Test.t there is the todo item:
# TODO test run_command()
Do this please :-)
Since RT 46893 calls for testing Parrot::Test in general, I'm going to
merge this ticket into that one.
kid51
On Thu Oct 25 08:20:10 2007, pcoch wrote:
In t/perl/Parrot_Test.t there are the todo item comments:
# TODO test write_code_to_file(), plan(), skip(), slurp_file()
# test the test functions from Parrot::Test
# TODO: test the untested test functions
This is all (realistically speaking)
Test continues to pass, so I'm resolving ticket.
On Tue Oct 28 20:03:36 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This has continued to pass for me on 10.4/PPC. Coke, if it's passing
for you as well (which, from Smolder reports, appears to be the case),
then can you close the ticket?
No feedback from Coke, so I'm closing the ticket.
On Sun Oct 19 18:34:40 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I probably spoke too soon. We have a Smolder failure report for this
test on AIX. So I'm going to reopen the ticket and rename it failing
intermittently on various OSes.
The only data I have available on this is from our Smolder reports.
No complaints since July, so I'm closing the ticket.
On Sun Jul 20 18:55:22 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch isn't ideal, but it gets us closer (and avoiding SIGABRT is
good).
Reviewing old tickets today. I applied this patch on my Linux/i386, but
got no improvement. Test #36, which has been TODO-ed, still fails:
not ok 36 -
On Sat Oct 18 09:39:52 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is more data concerning the above test failure.
Between r31872 (Oct 10) and r31967 (Oct 14), I used 'apt-get' to install
4 additional Debian packages on the Linux box on which these tests were
run. The packages were:
ii
We should continue to do these build fests -- invite me to your .pm
meeting and I'll lead the fest -- but we don't need to keep an RT open
to do it. So I'm resolving this ticket. Some issues discovered at
individual build fests remain open, but they have their own RTs.
Thank you very much.
On Mon Nov 10 22:04:35 2008, pioto wrote:
Sorry, I don't have a patch yet, I'm still figuring out how
Configure.pl
works.
To debug this, you may find it helpful to call: perl Configure.pl
--test=configure.
This will run the tests in t/configure and t/steps. Of particular
interest
On Wed Oct 22 12:52:39 2008, masak wrote:
Just wanted to note that the reported problem does not occur for me
anymore. In fact, I don't see the file t/examples/library.t among the
tested files in the `make test` output. Neither does grep.
Unfortunately, all that demonstrates is that we changed
Would it be possible to re-run these attempts to build Parrot using the
latest available version (0.8.1, I believe) and report continuing problems?
Thank you very much.
kid51
I believe that since this RT was first posted we have upped our
requirement for Storable.pm to v2.12 (without upping our requirement for
Perl).
Reini, are you still experiencing these problems?
Thank you very much.
kid51
On Fri Sep 19 07:32:09 2008, pgerd wrote:
On Do. 18. Sep. 2008, 10:52:32, julianalbo wrote:
Is not good that pir or pasm code meaning be dependent of locale
specifics of the system.
Also in several operating systems is not the computer who is working
with some charset and encoding or
This appears to be the same issue as reported in RT 59112, so I am going
to merge this ticket into that.
kid51
We're in the beginning stages of deprecating smoke.parrotcode.org in
favor of our Smolder report system. So it would probably not be worth
our effort to modify the smoke system to accept smoke test reports from
new sources, such as proposed here for releases.
I would like to encourage you to try
Jeff,
Have you tried out the patch, or otherwise tried to build Parrot recently?
Thank you very much.
kid51
On Wed Sep 10 19:48:04 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can someone evaluate where we stand with respect to the issues in this RT?
Thank you very much.
kid51
Still hoping for feedback on these issues.
Coke, notfound:
Did we reach any resolution on these questions?
Thank you very much.
kid51
Is there someone on RedHat or Fedora who could take a whack at this?
On Wed Jun 18 07:43:59 2008, packy wrote:
Minor note:
Darwin Kernel Version 7.9.0 = OSX 10.3.9
I believe we recently made Storable v2.12 the minimum version for
configuration of Parrot. Have you tried configuring recently? Any
different results?
Thank you very much.
kid51
On Tue Jan 22 16:14:47 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue Jan 22 14:02:30 2008, ajr wrote:
Any suggestions for further floundering would be welcome.
Well, here's one thought. You could try running Configure.pl with the
addition of the --configure_trace option. Read the POD for
On Wed Oct 24 14:56:32 2007, pcoch wrote:
In t/pmc/bignum.t there is the todo item:
# XXX Capture STDOUT
runtest( $_[0], $_[1], $ops{ $ARGV[2] }, $_[3], $round{ $_[4] }, $_[5] );
Which means that the output from stdout needs to be captured (and
supposedly used) when running individual
On Wed Oct 24 13:06:54 2007, pcoch wrote:
In t/pmc/threads.t there is the todo item:
# XXX FIXME rework tests since we don't really have thread types?
I hope this comment is fairly self-explanatory.
Well, I, for one, don't know what it means.
Also, shouldn't this be classified as a [PIR]
Why is this test labelled [Perl] rather than [PIR]?
On Sun Nov 23 17:48:48 2008, particle wrote:
the use_ok tests can all go in one file, so they're only run once.
~jerry
Reviewing them, I think we can probably eliminate them as 'use_ok' tests
and simply 'use' the modules. I think I'll do that with all except the
config step classes, which
Done in r33127. Other suggestions?
On Wed Nov 19 23:13:27 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Keenan via RT wrote:
On Tue Nov 18 10:22:25 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This will probably be quite challenging. Let's assume that all tests
are found in files with names ending in '.t'. Those .t files can be
written
Tonight, for the first time in four weeks, this test (#6) passed on
Darwin/PPC. Cf.:
http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/tap_stream/8270/260
I can't really tell which commit fixed this failure. Given the fact
that several files with 'pack' in their names were changed in r32888
This passed tonight on Darwin/PPC, r32919. I can't tell which commit
fixed the problem. Cf.:
http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/tap_stream/8270/270
If it continues to pass over the next week, I will close the ticket.
Thank you very much.
kid51
On Fri Nov 14 11:42:02 2008, bernhard wrote:
On Mo. 16. Jun. 2008, 16:50:13, coke wrote:
On Wed Jan 16 03:41:56 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While the fix to my particular problem is simple enough, it is
apparent
that there's enough bit rot in tools/util/smokeserv-server.pl that
it
On Sat Nov 08 00:06:50 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you post a backtrace?
Attached.
backtrace.packfile_6.pir
Description: Binary data
On Mon Nov 03 09:38:38 2008, doughera wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, James Keenan wrote:
Observations:
1. All 6 of these tests are marked to be skipped on Win32. So
perhaps the reason they're failing on OpenBSD is the same as that for
Win32. If so, then we could add 'OpenBSD' to
I understand that some of the Parrot developers will be having a confab
at Google the weekend after this. Perhaps they could devote some time
to discussing the question of how we can recruit to the project some
people who are *really* knowledgeable about particular OSes, i.e.,
porters. I
No complaints. No failures in Smolder tests. Resolving ticket.
This will be difficult to diagnose unless we do see 'make' output, so
please attach a file. Alternative, go to IRC #parrot and use 'nopaste'
to post.
On Sat Oct 18 09:39:52 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu Oct 16 04:39:06 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Here is more data concerning the above test failure.
Between r31872 (Oct 10) and r31967 (Oct 14), I used 'apt-get' to install
4 additional Debian packages on the Linux box on
On Tue Oct 28 12:08:05 2008, masak wrote:
Good suggestions. Here we go: http://nopaste.snit.ch/14409.
As a (probably misleading) point of reference, here's what I got on Mac
OS X 10.4 PPC in the same vicinity (95% of the way thru 'make') in a
recent build:
make -C compilers/pge
On Wed Oct 22 19:03:27 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After yesterday's release, this passed for me on Darwin PPC 10.4 at
r32119. I'll keep my fingers crossed and keep watching the Smolder
reports.
This has continued to pass for me on 10.4/PPC. Coke, if it's passing
for you as well (which,
On Tue Oct 28 12:08:05 2008, masak wrote:
Good suggestions. Here we go: http://nopaste.snit.ch/14409.
As a (probably misleading) point of reference, here's what I got on Mac
OS X 10.4 PPC in the same vicinity (95% of the way thru 'make') in a
recent build:
make -C compilers/pge
Still failing as of r32225; cf
http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/tap_stream/7437/260
not ok 6 - set_integer_keyed_str
# Failed test 'set_integer_keyed_str'
# at t/pmc/packfile.t line 140.
# Exited with error code: [SIGNAL 11]
# Received:
#
# Expected:
# not equal
#
Work completed and merged into trunk in r32182.
After yesterday's release, this passed for me on Darwin PPC 10.4 at
r32119. I'll keep my fingers crossed and keep watching the Smolder reports.
kid51
On Mon Oct 20 09:46:08 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
\ This basic test suite will fail. That's because of this test program:
t/00-parrot/06-op-inplace.t
I've reported this a couple of times in
http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=59634 -- but no one paid
attention.
Since you're
Anyone taking a look at this test should take note of the fact that the
immediately preceding test in this file is also experiencing failures on
certain platforms: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=59638
I probably spoke too soon. We have a Smolder failure report for this
test on AIX. So I'm going to reopen the ticket and rename it failing
intermittently on various OSes.
I should have included the failure report:
http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/tap_stream/6324/202
This was at r32032.
On Thu Oct 16 04:39:06 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
not ok 3 - examples/library/pcre.pir
# Failed test 'examples/library/pcre.pir'
# at t/examples/library.t line 67.
# got: 'asdf =~ /as/
# 1 match(es):
# '
# expected: 'asdf =~ /as/
# 1 match(es):
# as
# '
On Sun Oct 05 17:58:03 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Full report: http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/
report_details/5872
Platform: darwin
Architecture: ppc
Compiler: /usr/bin/gcc
DEVEL: -devel
Optimize: none
Perl Version: 5.10.0 darwin-2level
SVN Revision: 31687
Still failing on Darwin/PPC as of r32014:
http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/tap_stream/6320/163
And I should note that it's also been failing on Darwin/i386:
http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/tap_stream/6316/163
On Sat Oct 18 12:01:13 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James Keenan via RT wrote:
Still failing on Darwin/PPC as of r32014:
http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/tap_stream/6320/163
Looking at the specific test in question, this may be an integer size
problem.
And I
On Sat Oct 18 16:28:22 2008, coke wrote:
I'm submitting some every night at midnight on my osx/x86 box; if it's
obviously a temp directory and the right time frame, it's probably me.
So it seems to be failing consistently on Darwin regardless of platform.
Also, tonight I confirmed that
Tonight I got this:
t/00-parrot/06-op-inplace.. All 11 subtests passed
... but then I subsequently got this:
Test Summary Report
---
t/00-parrot/06-op-inplace (Wstat: 0 Tests: 11 Failed: 0)
Parse errors: Tests out of sequence. Found (3) but expected (9)
Still failing as of r31872.
It appears that my original post wasn't CC-ed to the list.
On Sun Oct 05 17:58:03 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Full report: http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/
report_details/5872
Platform: darwin
Architecture: ppc
Compiler: /usr/bin/gcc
DEVEL: -devel
Optimize: none
This was passing on Darwin as of r31667, i.e., just before the merge.
See http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/tap_stream/5891/163
This was passing as of r31667, i.e., just before the merge. See
http://smolder.plusthree.com/app/public_projects/tap_stream/5891/201
On Sun Oct 05 16:53:10 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't often build Rakudo, so I'm not even sure whether this is the
correct place to report this bug. In any event, this was run on
Linux at r31685.
make make test
FWIW, the error was reproduced when I typed:
make perl6 make
Hope this additional diagnostic info helps:
$ perl t/harness --verbosity=1 t/00-parrot/06-op-inplace.t
t/00-parrot/06-op-inplace
1..11
ok 1
ok 2
ok 3
ok 4
ok 5
ok 6
ok 7
ok 1
ok 9
ok 7
ok 11
All 11 subtests passed
Test Summary Report
---
t/00-parrot/06-op-inplace (Wstat: 0
FWIW, this test passed for me on Linux at the same SVN revision. And it
has always passed for me on Darwin previously, most recently at r31503
on 20080929.
On Fri Oct 03 08:55:12 2008, coke wrote:
This is a patch-response to r31585, which required a particular
version of Storable in one file.
Attached, find a patch which bumps our core perl requirement to 5.8.6,
the first time this particular version of Storable was included as a
core module
Forgot to forward to list:
On Thu Oct 02 18:37:05 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed Oct 01 16:09:41 2008, julianalbo wrote:
I see a more generic problem. Several modules add lib links to the
parrot executable. Makes sense to link static libraries if that is the
intention, but is
1 - 100 of 1353 matches
Mail list logo
