| Summary: | dev-perl/MooseX-Types-DateTimeX fails tests | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED) <flameeyes> |
| Component: | New packages | Assignee: | Gentoo Perl team <perl> |
| Status: | RESOLVED NEEDINFO | ||
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | High | ||
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
| Attachments: | Build log | ||
|
Description
Diego Elio Pettenò (RETIRED)
2011-01-16 20:47:54 UTC
Created attachment 260024 [details]
Build log
Strange thing.
>=dev-perl/DateTimeX-Easy-0.085 is in R/DEPEND and something is installed at
| # BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at
| /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.12.2/DateTimeX/Easy.pm line 17.
but somehow it thinks that DateTimeX::Easy is missing.
| - DateTimeX::Easy ...missing. (would need 0.085)
Is your dev-perl/DateTimeX-Easy broken? Does a rebuilt help?
(In reply to comment #2) > Strange thing. > > >=dev-perl/DateTimeX-Easy-0.085 is in R/DEPEND and something is installed at > > | # BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at > | /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.12.2/DateTimeX/Easy.pm line 17. > > but somehow it thinks that DateTimeX::Easy is missing. > > | - DateTimeX::Easy ...missing. (would need 0.085) > > > Is your dev-perl/DateTimeX-Easy broken? Does a rebuilt help? > I'm not sure, but check to make sure DateTimeX::Easy has a $VERSION, sometimes that can give a false-negative. Also, it looks like the failure *could* be caused by boolean: Multiple failure reports from 'boolean' version 0.24 of that kind: http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/613323e6-1f60-11e0-b558-0bc8d6c987b5 http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/61ec3714-1f60-11e0-b558-0bc8d6c987b5 http://www.cpantesters.org/cpan/report/cdddec58-2044-11e0-a399-d8e7c36605bb Changelog: version: 0.25 date: Sat Jan 15 19:05:19 EST 2011 changes: - Fixed a bug caused by Readonly::XS (schwern++) <-- sounds like us. - Removed the new methods and autobox methods. They didn't add much except confusion. - Documented that you can use isTrue and isFalse as methods. - &boolean(1,2,3) now dies like boolean(1,2,3) - &boolean() now dies like boolean() So try with boolean 0.240 and boolean 0.250 and see if this problem behaves as expected. Expectation: Fails with 0.240 Succeeds with 0.250 I am not able to reproduce this failure. |