Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/08/21/17:43:58
Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
> Charles Wilson schrieb am 2001-08-21, 12:11:
>
>
>>>Oops, seems to be a problem with the timestamp-trick. The last build was
>>>with multiplicity. Thats the reason why the tarball is so big...
>>>I build with multiplicity because i got a lot of more errors during tests
>>>without it.
>>>
>>
>>What sort of errors? In the past we were able to get 100 percent
>>compliance with test suite and did NOT have to build with multiplicity.
>>
>>
>
> Yes I think it does make no difference. I would prefer to build with, if
> it is not a problem with win98?
I don't know -- I don't have a Win9x system to test it on. However, I
*do* know this: if a user has already installed extensions for the
current perl, they will NOT carry over to a multiplicity perl. The pm
files often go in site_perl/5.6.1/cygwin/ -- but now they are searched
for in (and new ones will go into) site_perl/5.6.1/cygwin-multi/...
I'm not sure how much of an inconvenience this is. The perl
module-installation procedure -- which was in flux "recently" --
sometimes modifies files that are part of the main perl dist.
If you install modules, and then re-install perl (even the same cygwin
perl package) using setup, the files that were modified by module
installations will get clobbered. So, given the current "system" --
which probably needs some work -- end users may need to reinstall all of
their custom modules REGARDLESS of whether your new perl is built with
multiplicity or not.
This is a maintainer judgement call. I'm willing to defer to you. :-)
> WITH ntsec-harness i got these errors, i wonder why groups.t failed with
> ntsec in this previous build and failed not without ntsec.
> Also dubious is the pragma/strict error.
> One build before that i got a pragma/warnings error instead of pragma/strict.
>
> Failed Test Status Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> lib/glob-basic.t 9 1 11.11% 8
> op/groups.t 2 1 50.00% 1
> pragma/strict.t 93 1 1.08% 21
> 8 tests and 94 subtests skipped.
> Failed 3/275 test scripts, 98.91% okay. 3/12830 subtests failed, 99.98% okay.
>
> After that i patched into groups.t, but it changes nothing.
Strange. I'm willing to go ahead with this one, if it means having a
more proactive maintainer who's not MIA. 3 subtest failures
notwithstanding. But eventually these should be investigated and squashed.
Have you been able to reproduce any of the binmode/textmode problems
that folks have reported, or verify that they no longer exist? (Just
asking; I don't think it's worth holding up this release on that issue
alone. Again, I'd rather move forward -- those bugs if they still exist
can be corrected in the next one)
--Chuck
- Raw text -