Craig Berry wrote in reply to Michael Schwern:
> Good suggestion. I've updated the patch and will include that in what I
> submit in a day or two if I haven't heard any other feedback.
I finally have some RC2 test results to report: RC2 does not build
without Craig's patch to configpm, but like many of the @19xxx series
leading up to RC2 it will stop dead in my environment during the
run of MMK TEST when the testing gets to this point:
lib/ExtUtils/t/00compile.............ok
lib/ExtUtils/t/00setup_dummy.........ok
lib/ExtUtils/t/backwards.............ok
FDS02::PPRYMMER 16:56:26 MMK CPU=00:00:16.69 PF=1875 IO=36583 MEM=312
<<NHDEV2::PPRYMMER_149 16:56:26 PERL CPU=00:00:05.27 PF=11033 IO=398
MEM=34368>>
where those last two lines derive from typing Ctrl-T which
I did several times but saw no change (presumably the
lib/ExtUtils/t/basic.t
test is being attempted).
With Craig's suggested patch to File::Find along with
Michael's $Is_VMS suggestion I can obtain a complete run of
MMK TEST in my dirty build directory. With that patch
I see the following test failures:
t/lib/1_compile......................FAILED at test 6
ext/Encode/t/enc_eucjp...............FAILED at test 1
ext/Encode/t/enc_utf8................FAILED at test 1
lib/AutoSplit........................FAILED at test 1
lib/CPAN/t/loadme....................FAILED at test 1
lib/CPAN/t/Nox.......................FAILED at test 1
lib/CPAN/t/vcmp......................FAILED at test 0
lib/ExtUtils/t/00compile.............FAILED at test 0
lib/ExtUtils/t/basic.................FAILED at test 1
lib/ExtUtils/t/Constant..............FAILED at test 1
lib/ExtUtils/t/INST..................FAILED at test 2
lib/ExtUtils/t/Install...............FAILED at test 1
lib/ExtUtils/t/Installed.............FAILED at test 1
lib/ExtUtils/t/INST_PREFIX...........FAILED at test 2
lib/ExtUtils/t/Manifest..............FAILED at test 1
lib/ExtUtils/t/writemakefile_args....FAILED at test 3
lib/File/Find/t/find.................FAILED at test 0
lib/File/Find/t/taint................FAILED at test 1
lib/File/Spec/t/rel2abs2rel..........FAILED at test 4
lib/h2xs.............................FAILED at test 0
lib/Net/Ping/t/190_alarm.............FAILED at test 6
lib/Net/Ping/t/450_service...........FAILED at test 8
lib/Test/Harness/t/pod...............FAILED at test 0
t/pod/find...........................FAILED at test 1
Failed 24 test scripts out of 703, 96.59% okay.
However, if I run the "MMK TEST" suite with the patch
that I previously proposed and sent to the vmsperl
list I only see the following test failures:
ext/Encode/t/enc_eucjp...............FAILED at test 1
ext/Encode/t/enc_utf8................FAILED at test 1
lib/AutoSplit........................FAILED at test 3
lib/ExtUtils/t/basic.................FAILED at test 22
lib/ExtUtils/t/Manifest..............FAILED at test 18
lib/File/Find/t/find.................FAILED at test 19
lib/File/Find/t/taint................FAILED at test 20
lib/File/Spec/t/rel2abs2rel..........FAILED at test 4
lib/h2xs.............................FAILED at test 15
lib/Net/Ping/t/190_alarm.............FAILED at test 6
lib/Net/Ping/t/450_service...........FAILED at test 8
t/pod/find...........................FAILED at test 2
Failed 12 test scripts out of 707, 98.30% okay.
So if we had to vote solely on the basis of unintended
test failure reduction I'd have to vote for my patch rather
than Craig's. As a reminder mine is in the list archive
at:
http://www.xray.mpe.mpg.de/mailing-lists/vmsperl/2003-06/msg00083.html
Thanks for the effort - it is very much appreciated.
Peter Prymmer
