On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:14:47PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote: > 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,
I did too. > and I couldn't reproduce it myself. > > Is it reproducible for you after 'git clean -dfx'? Nope. I wonder what caused this, but not enough to do lots of digging. Note to self: always run git clean -dfx before builds! Sorry for the noise. Will run a rebuild against this package in the next day or two. 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
