Build.PL was renamed NotBuild.PL to avoid circular dependency upgrade
problems - Module::Build and Test::Harness have are mutually dependent
on each other.
I'm not sure I follow the reasoning for not going to 3.22 but then I
don't fully understand Debian's criteria for package inclusion :)
O
On Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:27:49 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
> > formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
> Gregor's mail implied that removal hadn't been decided upon as the final
> resolution, so I was waiting for co
On Thu, September 9, 2010 11:45, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
> formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
Gregor's mail implied that removal hadn't been decided upon as the final
resolution, so I was waiting for confirmation.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:45:51 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> Adam,
>What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
> formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
>
Removal hint added.
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Adam,
What do we need to do to push on with this? Do I need to raise a
formal request to have 3.20 removed from testing?
Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 18:53 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
Ideas so far:
1) reupload 3.17 (with an epoch or something)
2) create a 3.20 + patch
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 18:53 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> Ideas so far:
> 1) reupload 3.17 (with an epoch or something)
> 2) create a 3.20 + patch version (risky and ugly)
> 3) upload 3.22 (huge diff)
>
> Another simpler way that came to my mind might be:
> * Remove libtest-harness-perl 3.20-1 f
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 16:13:46 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> Adam,
>My conclusion is that in test the package should be rolled back
> to 3.17. Do you agree and if not why not?
>
>My reasoning is that attempting to do a patch is the most risky
> action since it would require unwinding most
Adam,
My conclusion is that in test the package should be rolled back to
3.17. Do you agree and if not why not?
My reasoning is that attempting to do a patch is the most risky
action since it would require unwinding most of the 3.21->3.22
transition which was a large one. In such a cont
Okay a sleepless might so I have some conclusions.
First of all any patched version needs to be based off 3.21 not 3.20
because the jump from 3.20 to 3.21 is really small and only affects test
files.
I extracted patch files for the suggested git commits. The total line
count is 492 though I
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 16:00, gregor herrmann wrote:
> I have no idea if this is enough or not; Nicholas and v.nix.is, what
> do you think?
I didn't track down what commits exactly were pertinent to fixing
this, I just did a log from 3.21 to the master at the time and picked
all the pertinent on
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:41:12 +0100, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> I am digging deeper but apart from confirming that the issues are
> real and fixed by 3.22 I have not got anything yet. I am trying to
> build what a patched 3.21 would be and get a more informed opinion
> but the required patch does loo
I am digging deeper but apart from confirming that the issues are real
and fixed by 3.22 I have not got anything yet. I am trying to build what
a patched 3.21 would be and get a more informed opinion but the required
patch does look big to me.
gregor herrmann wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:0
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 15:03:02 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > >> The bug concerns how the prove utility handles testing scripts
> > >> directly. Anyway other members of the Debian Perl group will want to
> > >> express an opinion.
> > > Did any of them do so and simply fail to Cc -release? :-)
>
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
> Why has Build.PL become NotBuild.PL?
I'm not the author here, but my guess is that Build.PL was renamed so
that Makefile.PL would be the preferred version, perhaps due to a bug
with some interaction with Module::Build that they're in
[re-ordered]
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 23:02 +0100, nicho...@periapt.co.uk wrote:
> Quoting "Adam D. Barratt" :
>
> > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 15:43 +0100, nicho...@periapt.co.uk wrote:
> >> The differences between 3.21 and 3.22 are more substantial. From
> >> what I can see however the area of the bu
The group definitely knows about the issue. What other information
apart from opinions would be of use?
Quoting "Adam D. Barratt" :
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 15:43 +0100, nicho...@periapt.co.uk wrote:
The differences between 3.21 and 3.22 are more substantial. From
what I can see however the a
On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 15:43 +0100, nicho...@periapt.co.uk wrote:
> The differences between 3.21 and 3.22 are more substantial. From
> what I can see however the area of the bug was being worked on almost
> right up until the release. In other words it looks to me as if the
> patch forms a l
n time to get
into squeeze.
[...]
As per bug #592506 there is a serious issue introduced since upstream 3.17.
There is theoretically a patch in the upstream repository.
We had 3.21-1 in our repository until today.
Upstream have issued a new release 3.22 that includes the patch.
What does the diff
> into squeeze.
[...]
> As per bug #592506 there is a serious issue introduced since upstream 3.17.
> There is theoretically a patch in the upstream repository.
> We had 3.21-1 in our repository until today.
> Upstream have issued a new release 3.22 that includes the patch.
What does
.
Testing/unstable version is 3.20-1.
As per bug #592506 there is a serious issue introduced since upstream 3.17.
There is theoretically a patch in the upstream repository.
We had 3.21-1 in our repository until today.
Upstream have issued a new release 3.22 that includes the patch.
I have just
retitle 592506 Serious regressions in 3.20-1 solved in upstream Git,
probable blocker for stable
kthx
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Package: libtest-harness-perl
Version: 3.20-1
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Since upstream released 3.17_01 there have been two serious
regressions with the handling of:
* Passing arguments to executable non-Perl tests:
https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=59186#txn-801685
* Runn
22 matches
Mail list logo
