On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 08:10:01PM -0400, Zed Pobre wrote: >On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:11:48PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: >> This package FTBFS for me on a clean sid chroot: >> >> # Failed test 'MMDDYYYY-unparseable' >> # at t/10-fix_datestring.t line 23. >> # got: '2012-08-20' >> # expected: undef >> # Looks like you failed 1 test of 20. >> t/10-fix_datestring.t ...... >> Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) >> Failed 1/20 subtests > >Oh, extremely ugly. Date::Manip changed behavior from 6.11 to 6.25, >and it now thinks it can parse an utterly ambiguous string and does so >in the least reasonable manner possible. > >The string that is being parsed into '2012-08-20' under 6.25 is >'12082001'. Under 6.11 that will return 'undef', and likely >candidates could be '1208-01-20', '2001-08-12', '2001-12-08'. >'2012-08-20' is not something anyone looking at that number would >guess. Now I don't know if I should refile this against >libdate-manip-perl, or just kill the test and live with it. :(
Hey Zed, Any progress on this? I'm working through armhf build failures and this is on the list. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
