I'm not certain which of my tester machines created this. I have a rhel5, rhel6, dragonflybsd and FreeBSD running- though clearly this is Linux. rhel6 has perl 5.10 (tragically) but that kernel version in rhel5...
Dean On 19/01/2012, at 6:09 PM, "Sisyphus" <sisyph...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Oswald" <daosw...@gmail.com> > To: <inline@perl.org> > Cc: <d...@fragfest.com.au> > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 12:31 PM > Subject: Smoke test failure: Inline::CPP: Still dealing with "Can't locate > Parse::RecDescent, and M18 errors. > > >> I uploaded Inline::CPP 0.33_004 to CPAN a few days ago, and right out >> of the chute got four failures, all with the same issues: >> >> 1: "Can't locate Parse::RecDescent in @INC..." >> >> 2: "I currently only know about .... C, Foo, foo..." (M18 error) >> > > Get the first one fixed and the second should then also be fixed. > > I see errors like this in the tester reports: > > Can't locate Parse/RecDescent.pm in @INC (@INC contains: > /root/.cpan/build/Inline-0.49-lx4gWx/blib/lib/ > /root/.cpan/build/Inline-CPP-0.33-f2c5yY/blib/lib > /root/.cpan/build/Inline-CPP-0.33-f2c5yY/blib/arch > /root/.cpan/build/Inline-0.49-lx4gWx/blib/arch > /root/.cpan/build/Inline-0.49-lx4gWx/blib/lib > /root/.cpan/build/Inline-0.49-lx4gWx/blib/arch > /root/.cpan/build/Inline-0.49-lx4gWx/blib/lib /usr/local/lib64/perl5 > /usr/local/share/perl5 /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl > /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 .) at > /root/.cpan/build/Inline-CPP-0.33-f2c5yY/blib/lib/Inline/CPP/grammar.pm line > 13. > > Nowhere in that listing of @INC do we see the directory that contains > Parse::RecDescent - which, as we discover in the @INC listing near the end of > the same report, is probably in: > > /root/.cpan/build/Parse-RecDescent-1.965001-L2ss9W/blib/arch > > It should just be a matter of the tester fixing his installation so that @INC > does not change during the Inline::CPP build. > While the installation stays in this current state, perl is broken - at least > that's the way it looks to me. > > (Btw, that's from: > http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/25b934b0-360a-11e1-8fed-ee225f9ffb60 > which relates to 0.33. I expect it's the same thing happening with 0.33_004, > though I didn't manage to locate any FAIL reports for that particular build. > If it's important that we look at a failure report for 0.33_004 could you > drop us a link to one.) > > Cheers, > Rob
