On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 11:20:23AM -0800, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> Has anyone familiar with DistGen looked at what Craig is doing?
> Can anyone offer any assistance?
>
> More comments inline.
>
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:10:58PM -0600, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> > At 3:39 PM -0800 2/5/06,
Has anyone familiar with DistGen looked at what Craig is doing?
Can anyone offer any assistance?
More comments inline.
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 06:10:58PM -0600, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> At 3:39 PM -0800 2/5/06, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>
> >Any progress on this front? Given that this is ju
At 3:39 PM -0800 2/5/06, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>Any progress on this front? Given that this is just for purposes of
>running tests, maybe here the hash keys should always be lowercased?
>
>The previous patch to add Module::Build no longer applies cleanly;
>
>http://zipcon.net/~sthoenna/m
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:41:55PM -0600, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> At 9:31 PM -0500 1/26/06, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> >Craig A. Berry wrote:
> >>
> >>So now we're getting to the problem that was Yitzchak's first theory,
> >>namely that it's a case problem, more specifically, the case-leveled
> >>na
At 9:31 PM -0500 1/26/06, John E. Malmberg wrote:
>Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>
>>So now we're getting to the problem that was Yitzchak's first theory,
>>namely that it's a case problem, more specifically, the case-leveled
>>names returned from File::Find do not match the case-preserved names
>>in the
Craig A. Berry wrote:
So now we're getting to the problem that was Yitzchak's first theory,
namely that it's a case problem, more specifically, the case-leveled
names returned from File::Find do not match the case-preserved names
in the hash, so we delete the files because they are not recognize
At 5:35 PM -0600 1/26/06, Ken Williams wrote:
>On Jan 26, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>>The pathname is ok. The test can't find it because it really doesn't
>>exist because it got deleted by DistGen->clean(), which doesn't
>>recognize it as one of the directories in its cache of direc
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:45:12AM -0600, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> At 1:46 AM -0800 1/26/06, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >Just a few comments to start with. Have you had a chance to look
> >at any of this?
>
> Started to debug it but haven't gotten very far.
>
> > >
> > > $ perl harness [-.l
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:38:41AM -0500, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >Just a few comments to start with. Have you had a chance to look
> >at any of this?
> >
> >On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:16:08PM -0600, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> >
> >>I tested it against [EMAIL PROTEC
On Jan 26, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
The pathname is ok. The test can't find it because it really doesn't
exist because it got deleted by DistGen->clean(), which doesn't
recognize it as one of the directories in its cache of directory
names. The basic issues revolve around VMS f
On Jan 26, 2006, at 11:45 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
The pathname is ok. The test can't find it because it really doesn't
exist because it got deleted by DistGen->clean(), which doesn't
recognize it as one of the directories in its cache of directory
names. The basic issues revolve around VMS
At 1:46 AM -0800 1/26/06, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
>Just a few comments to start with. Have you had a chance to look
>at any of this?
Started to debug it but haven't gotten very far.
> >
> > $ perl harness [-.lib.Module.Build.t]*.t
>> d0:[craig.perl.lib.module.build.t]basic...ok 7/
Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
Just a few comments to start with. Have you had a chance to look
at any of this?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:16:08PM -0600, Craig A. Berry wrote:
I tested it against [EMAIL PROTECTED] Complete harness output is below.
It may not be as bad as it looks in that it
Just a few comments to start with. Have you had a chance to look
at any of this?
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:16:08PM -0600, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> At 3:49 AM -0800 1/19/06, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 06:34:30AM -0500, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> >
> >Would you be able
14 matches
Mail list logo
