>>>>> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:21:52 +0000, Barbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi Andreas, >> Output from '/usr/bin/make': >> >> make: Warning: File `Makefile.PL' has modification time 11 s in the >> future Makefile out-of-date with respect to Makefile.PL Cleaning >> current config before rebuilding Makefile... >> make -f Makefile.old clean > /dev/null 2>&1 >> /home/src/perl/repoperls/installed-perls/perl/pNUSF0c/[EMAIL >> PROTECTED]/bin/perl >> Makefile.PL Checking if your kit is complete... >> Looks good >> Writing Makefile for WWW::Scraper::ISBN::Amazon_Driver ==> Your Makefile >> has been rebuilt. <== ==> Please rerun the make command. <== false >> make: *** [Makefile] Error 1 > This and the other FAIL are bogus reports. Having a Makefile.PL 11 > seconds and 24 seconds respectively out of sync with your system clock > is not a valid reason for failure! Eeeeek. This only ever occured to me when I tested something coming from Australia with improper timestamps. But nowadays I usually test within seconds after the upload so of course it happens more often. (But I'm pretty sure I have set up NTP correctly) > Is this something that should be fixed within CPAN.pm or caught by the > CPAN Testers tools? I don't know, offhand. > I would prefer CPAN.pm be able to acknowlegde this > and rerun the process of 'perl Makefile.PL/make' as appropriate. Depends what you mean by "as appropriate". Wait until the time is reached that this user thought being NOW()? This won't be feasible when users send us files that have a timestamp that is a bit more in the future. So to satisfy 'make' we would have to manipulate timestamps and this would naturally be a job for MakeMaker, not for CPAN.pm. Hrm, as I said, I don't know a good solution at the moment. You? > Or is > this because you are testing with multiple perls and the original > unwrapping is being used repeatedly, as all your later tests pass > without a problem? Yes, I untar these files again and again for every perl that runs the test. Looks like a few seconds passed between the tests. The Date header on the website is nonsense, it reflects the time when the email arrived. I know the sequence in which they were produced 723228 (5.10.0; -24 secs), 723217 (5.9.5; -11 secs), 723219 (5.8.8; >0 secs). You understand now how it fits together? -- andreas
