On 2018/09/10 20:28, Charlene Wendling wrote: > Hi! > > We could change the FILENO [1] subroutine to 16 (it works here) for > example, but it may fail anyway, as you can read there and in the > source, it's a "try and see it" situation. > > With Stuart's tweaks, failure is predictible and documented, so let's go > for it! I'm attaching a diff.
I've just committed similar - I added the RT URL, and skipped the REVISION bump (NO_TEST doesn't affect the package).
