At 2:50 PM -0400 7/20/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >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:
<snip> >Failed 24 test scripts out of 703, 96.59% okay. Since most of these fail at test 0 or test 1, I'd suspect compile failures, library loading failures, etc. As I mentioned, I see no failures at all in my environment. I can't rule out the possibility that File::Find is still getting lost, but it would be nice to know why that happens in your environment and not in mine (both OVMS Alpha 7.3-1). Have you run any of those tests individually in verbose mode? > >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: <snip> >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 Ah, I'd forgotten about that one. I've now given that a try and get almost all the same failures you do (except no Encode or Net::Ping failures, the latter skipped because I don't have an echo service). So my patch looks horrible in your environment and perfect in mine. Your patch looks medium bad in both. From my perspective, yours causes a whole slew of failures I don't otherwise have. I suppose mine looks the same from your perspective. >Thanks for the effort - it is very much appreciated. As is yours. But I don't think we yet have something that can be called a general improvement. I'm curious what the exact error message is when you get those "FAILED at test 0" messages. -- ________________________________________ Craig A. Berry mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] "... getting out of a sonnet is much more difficult than getting in." Brad Leithauser
