On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 10:03:51PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > 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
> $ ../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. I find this hard to believe, and I couldn't reproduce it myself. Is it reproducible for you after 'git clean -dfx'? If it is, could you put the resulting source package available somewhere? -- Niko Tyni nt...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
