Skip Menu |

This queue is for tickets about the BerkeleyDB CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 120914
Status: open
Priority: 0/
Queue: BerkeleyDB
People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: cpan [...] tlinx.org
Cc:
AdminCc:
Bug Information
Severity: Normal
Broken in: 0.55
Fixed in: (no value)

History Show all quoted text
  Mon Apr 03 19:24:43 2017 cpan [...] tlinx.org - Ticket created
Subject: test "t/env.t" fails... does it need to?
Error with code added to print out what the test was testing: t/env.t ........ VER=Berkeley DB 4.8.30: (May 12, 2014), ver=Berkeley DB 4.8.30: (October 21, 2013) t/env.t ........ 1/53 # Failed test (t/env.t at line 34) # Looks like you failed 1 test of 53. t/env.t ........ Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) Failed 1/53 subtests ok, so VER!=ver, same version, but 6 months off in the date. Is that important?
  Tue Apr 04 04:29:24 2017 pmqs [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added
On Mon Apr 03 19:24:43 2017, cpan@tlinx.org wrote: Show quoted text
> Error with code added to print out what the test was testing: > > t/env.t ........ VER=Berkeley DB 4.8.30: (May 12, 2014), ver=Berkeley > DB 4.8.30: (October 21, 2013) > t/env.t ........ 1/53 > # Failed test (t/env.t at line 34) > # Looks like you failed 1 test of 53. > t/env.t ........ Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) > Failed 1/53 subtests > > ok, so VER!=ver, same version, but 6 months off in the date. Is that > important?
No, it isn't. The version number is all that matters. cheers Paul
  Tue Apr 04 04:29:25 2017 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'
  Tue Apr 04 15:43:55 2017 cpan [...] tlinx.org - Correspondence added
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #120914] test "t/env.t" fails... does it need to?
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2017 12:13:38 -0700
To: bug-BerkeleyDB [...] rt.cpan.org
From: "unknown [...] tlinx.org" <cpan [...] tlinx.org>
Paul Marquess via RT wrote: Show quoted text
> <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=120914 > > > On Mon Apr 03 19:24:43 2017, cpan@tlinx.org wrote: >
>> Error with code added to print out what the test was testing: >> >> t/env.t ........ VER=Berkeley DB 4.8.30: (May 12, 2014), ver=Berkeley >> DB 4.8.30: (October 21, 2013) >> t/env.t ........ 1/53 >> # Failed test (t/env.t at line 34) >> # Looks like you failed 1 test of 53. >> t/env.t ........ Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) >> Failed 1/53 subtests >> >> ok, so VER!=ver, same version, but 6 months off in the date. Is that >> important? >>
> > No, it isn't. The version number is all that matters. >
--- Then the test should be fixed to ignore the date portion?
  Sat Apr 08 06:52:41 2017 pmqs [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added
On Tue Apr 04 15:43:55 2017, cpan@tlinx.org wrote: Show quoted text
> Paul Marquess via RT wrote:
> > <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=120914 > > > > > On Mon Apr 03 19:24:43 2017, cpan@tlinx.org wrote: > >
> >> Error with code added to print out what the test was testing: > >> > >> t/env.t ........ VER=Berkeley DB 4.8.30: (May 12, 2014), ver=Berkeley > >> DB 4.8.30: (October 21, 2013) > >> t/env.t ........ 1/53 > >> # Failed test (t/env.t at line 34) > >> # Looks like you failed 1 test of 53. > >> t/env.t ........ Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100) > >> Failed 1/53 subtests > >> > >> ok, so VER!=ver, same version, but 6 months off in the date. Is that > >> important? > >>
> > > > No, it isn't. The version number is all that matters. > >
> --- > Then the test should be fixed to ignore the date portion?
Yep. Thing I can't remember offhand is if the version number format has remained constant over the years. I'll put this on the list to get fixed.