Your smoker's @INC is not working? ( same CPAN @INC woes )

2011-04-23 Thread p...@0ne.us
Hello, I've been getting those reports from time to time and spotted this coming from you. http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/47536208-6c98-1014-bb19-65b45ab04f7e http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/62e7497f-6c96-1014-bb19-65b45ab04f7e Notice how the testsuite couldn't

Re: root vs user

2011-03-24 Thread p...@0ne.us
Andreas J. Koenig wrote: On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:12:37 +0100, Lars Dɪᴇᴄᴋᴏᴡ 迪拉斯 da...@cpan.org said: it would have been easy to see the root failures but the successes as a regular user. That's what http://analysis.cpantesters.org/solved?distv=File-Slurp-.14 is

Re: Fwd: Returned mail: see transcript for details

2010-04-18 Thread p...@0ne.us
Hah, time for you to get on the Metabase train, eh? :) Nigel Horne wrote: Oh dear :-( Back with the 'badmailfrom' problem... - The following addresses had permanent fatal errors - cpan-test...@perl.org (reason: 550 sorry, your envelope sender is in my badmailfrom list)

Re: Fwd: CPAN Testers Using 5.12.0?

2010-03-25 Thread p...@0ne.us
David Golden wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Barbie bar...@missbarbell.co.uk wrote: If it does, mine can be quickly patched to match it ;) Should an RC be classed as a patched version or an official release? I would think the former. Patched, certainly. David Yes,

Re: CT 2.0 prerequisites

2010-03-15 Thread p...@0ne.us
David Golden wrote: On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:46 AM, David Golden xda...@gmail.com wrote: I've uploaded Metabase-Fact-0.004. Most prerequisites have been dropped to their last integer version (2.123 - 2). Core pragmas like overload have been dropped. I hope that works better.

Re: CT 2.0 prerequisites

2010-03-13 Thread p...@0ne.us
David Golden wrote: Several people have mentioned that the CT2.0 Metabase modules are asking for some core requirements that are too high to be satisfied on older Perls. I'll fix that when I get a chance. In the meantime, just force install things and see if works anyway. For anyone keeping

Re: CPAN Testers 2.0 -- BETA TEST

2010-03-11 Thread p...@0ne.us
David Golden wrote: At long last, I think we're ready to beta test CT2.0. I haven't yet deployed rafl's app to distribute CT2.0 ID files, so if you are interested in beta testing, please email me and I will email you an ID file and instructions. ID files replace email addresses as the way

Re: Blocking apocal's smokerr

2010-02-04 Thread p...@0ne.us
David Golden wrote: On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Barbie bar...@missbarbell.co.uk wrote: It might be worth using a different email address for each VM. Currently I have 'apo...@cpan.org' blacklisted. I'll lift that ban now that you've stopped the smokers and can investigate the problem.

Re: Blocking apocal's smokerr

2010-02-04 Thread p...@0ne.us
Barbie wrote: Hi Apocalyse, I'm trying to figure out the root cause for the problems, but it's hard to dig through the data when all the reports are blacklisted and not showing up anywhere. You can still see your reports, as they are still on the NNTP server. If you go to a

Re: Blocking apocal's smokerr

2010-02-03 Thread p...@0ne.us
out my setup and hammer out all bugs in it. Here's some information in case you wanted to contact me or look at my setup: Email: p...@0ne.us PAUSE id: APOCAL IRC: apocaly...@magnet, apo...@freenode, apo...@oftc, ap0...@quakenet, apo...@undernet, and I hang out in the #cpantesters

Re: Another broken report submitted for String-RewritePrefix-0.005

2010-02-03 Thread p...@0ne.us
Andreas J. Koenig wrote: Apocal, your testing setup needs fixing. http://www.nntp.perl.org/group/perl.cpan.testers/2010/01/msg078.html This fail report claims to fail because your setup Can't locate Data/OptList.pm. As you can see very well illustrated in the dependency graph painted at

Re: CPAN TESTERS ALERT -- throttle your smokers NOW

2009-12-21 Thread p...@0ne.us
Andreas J. Koenig wrote: On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:12:59 -0500, David Golden xda...@gmail.com said: In the meantime, please slow down testing -- put sleep loops in the smoker code or something. Whatever you have to do -- we need to get back down to the 100,000 reports/month

Re: Crucial factor NTP management (Was: CPANPLUS::Dist::Build 0.44 considered harmful)

2009-12-16 Thread p...@0ne.us
Andreas J. Koenig wrote: On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:14:40 +, Chris 'BinGOs' Williams ch...@bingosnet.co.uk said: Regarding the email subject, as far as I can tell from the reports I looked through they were all relating to time issues with Makefile, CP::D::Build wouldn't

Re: CPANPLUS::Dist::Build 0.44 considered harmful

2009-12-15 Thread p...@0ne.us
Andreas J. Koenig wrote: Evidence is rather strong to me that CPANPLUS::Dist::Build 0.44 is producing bad reports. Several of my statistics indicate that CPANPLUS::Dist::Build=0.44 never produces PASS reports and instead produces many false FAIL reports. Here a few samples:

Re: More testing of common platforms

2009-11-29 Thread p...@0ne.us
David Cantrell wrote: Slaven Rezic wrote: Related to this issue, I would like to encourage testers on Unix platforms to test with an X display available. Currently meaningful test results for e.g. Tk-related modules are practically missing. If you can point me at the software, I'll