Craig Berry wrote in reply to me:
!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?
Your suspicion was on target: I had to hand apply your patch to
[.lib.file]find.pm
and I goofed it and left out a parenthesis hence File::Find would not
compile as patched, hence
I obtained 24 test failures.
!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.
Not any longer.
!>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.
When I correct the syntax error I introduced in applying your
patch and re-run "mmk test" I now obtain:
ext/Encode/t/enc_eucjp...............FAILED at test 1
ext/Encode/t/enc_utf8................FAILED at test 1
lib/File/Spec/t/rel2abs2rel..........FAILED at test 4
lib/Net/Ping/t/190_alarm.............FAILED at test 6
lib/Net/Ping/t/450_service...........FAILED at test 8
Failed 5 test scripts out of 707, 99.29% okay.
Which I'll call a general improvement and say go ahead
and apply your patch with Michael's $Is_VMS suggestion.
I apologize for the false alarm.
Peter Prymmer
