Re: Bug#677865: Re: Bug#677865: dpkg-gencontrol warns about 'File::FcntlLock not available'
Hi,
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:34:59PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2014 17:57:34 +0200, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote:
> > Thank you very much. Unfortunately, CPAN testing has shown
> > that there are some systems where there are problems building
> > the complete module.
>
> The results of the Debian build daemons are also not very
> encouraging:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/logs.php?pkg=libfile-fcntllock-perl
>
> > For this reason I had to modify the build process to avoid that
> > on such systems the modules File::FcntlLock::Pure and
> > File::FcntlLock::Inline get installed, and I have just uploaded
> > a new 0.17 version.
>
> 0.18 uploaded to Debian, let's keep an eye on the buildd logs (same
> URL as above).
I just had a look at these log files (thanks for the link!) and
something definitely is fishy there. While (with the excetion of
mipsel, where there is a complaining about some downloads failing
which I probably can't do much about) for most of what looks like
32-bit systems the ::Pure and ::Inline modules fail their most
important test:-(
CPAN testing gives it clean bill of health, but the tests seem
to have been done with 64-bit systems only.
At the moment I'm at a loss to understand what's going on with the
32-bit systems - they obviously have a 'q' format for pack/unpack
(otherwise the ::Pure and ::Inline modules shouldn't be build and
then also not tested). Unfortunately, it's nearly a decade since
I had any 32-bit system, so this is a bit like flying blind;-)
Is there any chance of someone temporarily giving me an account
on a type of machine where the tests fail or at least of getting
at what the results of 'perl Makefile.PL' look like (that should
contain the automatically created Perl code which might give me
some clues)?
Please accept my appologies for these inconveniences!
Best regards, Jens
--
\ Jens Thoms Toerring ________ jt@toerring.de
\_______________________________ http://toerring.de
Reply to: