Adam,
What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 18:53 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
Ideas so far:
1) reupload 3.17 (with an epoch or something)
2) create a 3.20 +
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:45:51 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Adam,
What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
Removal hint added.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Thu, September 9, 2010 11:45, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
Gregor's mail implied that removal hadn't been decided upon as the final
resolution, so I was waiting for confirmation.
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:27:49 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
Gregor's mail implied that removal hadn't been decided upon as the final
resolution, so I was waiting for
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:13:46 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Adam,
My conclusion is that in test the package should be rolled back
to 3.17. Do you agree and if not why not?
My reasoning is that attempting to do a patch is the most risky
action since it would require unwinding most of
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 18:53 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
Ideas so far:
1) reupload 3.17 (with an epoch or something)
2) create a 3.20 + patch version (risky and ugly)
3) upload 3.22 (huge diff)
Another simpler way that came to my mind might be:
* Remove libtest-harness-perl 3.20-1 from
Adam,
My conclusion is that in test the package should be rolled back to
3.17. Do you agree and if not why not?
My reasoning is that attempting to do a patch is the most risky
action since it would require unwinding most of the 3.21-3.22
transition which was a large one. In such a
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:03:02 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
The bug concerns how the prove utility handles testing scripts
directly. Anyway other members of the Debian Perl group will want to
express an opinion.
Did any of them do so and simply fail to Cc -release? :-)
The group
I am digging deeper but apart from confirming that the issues are real
and fixed by 3.22 I have not got anything yet. I am trying to build what
a patched 3.21 would be and get a more informed opinion but the required
patch does look big to me.
gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:41:12 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
I am digging deeper but apart from confirming that the issues are
real and fixed by 3.22 I have not got anything yet. I am trying to
build what a patched 3.21 would be and get a more informed opinion
but the required patch does look
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:00, gregor herrmann gre...@debian.org wrote:
I have no idea if this is enough or not; Nicholas and v.nix.is, what
do you think?
I didn't track down what commits exactly were pertinent to fixing
this, I just did a log from 3.21 to the master at the time and picked
all
Okay a sleepless might so I have some conclusions.
First of all any patched version needs to be based off 3.21 not 3.20
because the jump from 3.20 to 3.21 is really small and only affects test
files.
I extracted patch files for the suggested git commits. The total line
count is 492 though I
[re-ordered]
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 23:02 +0100, nicho...@periapt.co.uk wrote:
Quoting Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 15:43 +0100, nicho...@periapt.co.uk wrote:
The differences between 3.21 and 3.22 are more substantial. From
what I can see however the
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Adam D. Barratt
a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote:
Why has Build.PL become NotBuild.PL?
I'm not the author here, but my guess is that Build.PL was renamed so
that Makefile.PL would be the preferred version, perhaps due to a bug
with some interaction with
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 15:43 +0100, nicho...@periapt.co.uk wrote:
The differences between 3.21 and 3.22 are more substantial. From
what I can see however the area of the bug was being worked on almost
right up until the release. In other words it looks to me as if the
patch forms a
The group definitely knows about the issue. What other information
apart from opinions would be of use?
Quoting Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk:
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 15:43 +0100, nicho...@periapt.co.uk wrote:
The differences between 3.21 and 3.22 are more substantial. From
what
We have a new upstream version of Test::Harness from CPAN. I have just
packaged this version and given that this fixes an issue currently in
test, we need to know whether this should be uploaded in time to get
into squeeze.
The rough history is as follows:
Current stable version is
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 13:16 +0100, nicho...@periapt.co.uk wrote:
We have a new upstream version of Test::Harness from CPAN. I have just
packaged this version and given that this fixes an issue currently in
test, we need to know whether this should be uploaded in time to get
into squeeze.
Adam,
The differences between 3.20 and 3.21 are minor - only the test scripts.
The differences between 3.21 and 3.22 are more substantial. From
what I can see however the area of the bug was being worked on almost
right up until the release. In other words it looks to me as if the
patch
19 matches
Mail list logo
