Re: [Module::Build] [PATCH] make test failure report (Cygwin)

[Ken W. <ke...@ma...>]

On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 11:52  PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:

> On 10/14/2003 11:04 PM, Randy W. Sims wrote:
>
>> PS. I've attached output of the error I'm getting from t/runthrough.t 
>> on Win2k for the archives.
>> not ok 23# Test 23 got: '<SOFTPKG NAME="Sample" VERSION="0,01,0,0">
>>     <TITLE>Sample</TITLE>
>> </ABSTRACT>CT>Foo foo sample foo
>>     <AUTHOR>Sample Man &lt;sa...@ex...&gt;</AUTHOR>
>>     <IMPLEMENTATION>
>>         <DEPENDENCY NAME="File-Spec" VERSION="0,0,0,0" />
>>         <CODEBASE HREF="/path/to/codebase" />
>>     </IMPLEMENTATION>
>> </SOFTPKG>
>> ' (t/runthrough.t at line 130)
>> #    Expected: '<SOFTPKG NAME="Sample" VERSION="0,01,0,0">
>>     <TITLE>Sample</TITLE>
>>     <ABSTRACT>Foo foo sample foo</ABSTRACT>
>>     <AUTHOR>Sample Man &lt;sa...@ex...&gt;</AUTHOR>
>>     <IMPLEMENTATION>
>>         <DEPENDENCY NAME="File-Spec" VERSION="0,0,0,0" />
>>         <CODEBASE HREF="/path/to/codebase" />
>>     </IMPLEMENTATION>
>> </SOFTPKG>
>> '
>> Deleting Sample.ppd
>> Deleting save_out
>> Deleting Sample-0.01.tar.gz
>> Deleting lib/Sample/Script
>> Deleting blib
>> Deleting _build
>> Deleting Build
>
> And here is the patch to fix it; It seems the line ending in the 
> abstract was causing trouble.

Wow, what a weird way to manifest that error.  I'll apply the patch, 
thanks.


> BTW, wouldn't it be better to use Pod::Parser in the dist_* routines 
> for more acurate results?

Probably so, yeah.  Is that a core module?

  -Ken