Hi all, This looks like another case of thwarting my attempt at changing how we find the dist_version. This has a module_name set, plus a dist_version_from.
Is the previous behavior as-documented or accidental?
That is, what does module_name mean, and what does dist_name mean if
dist_version_from means something that module_name doesn't? (If any of
that makes any sense?)
--Eric
---------- Forwarded Message: ----------
Subject: Re: Module::Build 0.2809 release coming, should we test it?
Date: Wednesday 10 September 2008 23:04
From: Slaven Rezic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am also smoke testing Module::Build 0.2803 against a smaller list
than yours, using just distributions which had previously a PASS on my
system. The smoker is not yet finished, but I found a regression which
looks like being caused by Module::Build.
Here are the both reports, the first (a PASS) created with
Module::Build 0.2808, the second (a FAIL) with 0.2808_03.
Regards,
Slaven
-------------------------------------------------------
--
"I've often gotten the feeling that the only people who have learned
from computer assisted instruction are the authors."
--Ben Schneiderman
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
pass.Test-Run-0.0117.i386-freebsd.6.1-release.1221086796.73190.rpt
Description: Binary data
fail.Test-Run-0.0117.i386-freebsd.6.1-release.1221086733.73167.rpt
Description: Binary data
