Thanks to David and Slaven for the testing. It does appear that r10222 needs to be reverted because that's just going to cause failures and clearly you can't get there from here (did I mention that there's no test coverage for this case either) -- but I don't really know what there looks like at this point anyway, so please just kill that patch and move on.
If anyone has the energy to go through David's results (below), you'll probably find more of the same (Slaven reported Authen-Tcpdmatch and Test-Run.) Thanks, Eric ---------- Forwarded Message: ---------- Subject: Re: Module::Build 0.2809 release coming, should we test it? Date: Wednesday 10 September 2008 12:17 From: David Cantrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://scratchcomputing.com/tmp/generated_by.module_build.onceper Results are here: http://hetzner.barnyard.co.uk/misc/mb-test-results.tar.gz Each set of results is in its own directory, with the CPAN::Reporter log (resports-sent.db) and a directory full of test reports. It includes all the dependencies as well. Whenever installers paused to ask me for options I always either took the default, or my CPAN dist preferences supplied the same ones. The only significant difference aside from the version of Module::Build will be if any of those distributions' dependencies had a new release between the two test runs*. It's possible that there may be a few other minor differences if, eg, during the first run an installer left some droppings in my home directory that got re-used the second time; or if some timing differences (due to different system loads) change things; or if the network farted - little things like that. If you need me to re-run anything I can, and also let me know if there's anything you don't understand about any of the reports. I've had a *lot* of experience at picking them apart :-) Note that I recorded the results for *all* Build.PL and Build failures, including those that are due to things like missing libraries. Only recording those that were real failures would have taken a lot longer. In any case, those false positives will be the same on both runs so you can ignore them. * unfortunately I did notice that this included Sub::UpLevel, and there was rather a large thread about that today which I didn't read. I hope that hasn't screwed things up. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice What profiteth a man, if he win a flame war, yet lose his cool? ------------------------------------------------------- -- "If you dig it, it's yours." --An old village poet (via Al Pacino) --------------------------------------------------- http://scratchcomputing.com ---------------------------------------------------
