On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 08:10:13PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> > At some point I think we should revert the patch, possibly with some test
> > rebuilds first to make sure no other package in the archive is relying
> > on our divergence. (IMO this is a bit overly defensive but easy enough
> > that it may be worth doing.)
>
> Sounds good. I'll look at doing this once the 5.12 migration is
> completed.
Reverting this and rebuilding 5.12:
t/porting/checkcase............................................FAILED at test
130
t/porting/diag.................................................ok
t/porting/maintainers..........................................ok
t/porting/manifest.............................................ok
t/porting/podcheck.............................................ok
t/porting/test_bootstrap.......................................ok
Failed 1 test out of 1756, 99.94% okay.
porting/checkcase.t
$ ../perl -I../lib porting/checkcase.t |grep -v ^ok
not ok 131 - lib/Version, lib/version
1..11197
I assume that this patch has somehow become depended upon by one of
our other patches, maybe extutils_hacks, but I can't see why now.
Dominic.
--
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
