On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 19:54:07 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > > 'int rand 100' returns results between 0 and 99, and with 0 and 1, > > > > the for loop is not run. > > > So it fails deliberately once every 50 times? > > I'm skeptical that it fails on purpose. > I mean that once that we (not the author) know why it fails, not > fixing it is almost as letting it fail deliberately.
Oh I see, sorry for the misunderstanding. > > > > Ok, after applying the proposed patch from CPAN RT, I don't get this > > > > problem anymore, and I now also get the failures we're seeing on > > > > ci.d.n. > > > Would be possible to apply the patch for stretch? > > Since it only fixes part of the problem I'm afraid that wouldn't be > > so useful. > I guess it will depend on how often does the other problem happen. > Does it happen more than 1 in 50 times or a lot less? IIRC it happens less often. So I guess your argument is that reducing the likelihood of test failures makes sense even if we don't catch all? -- I have to say that I can agree with this point :) Package uploaded with the patch from the CPAN (without closing the bug). Let's see if we are too late for stretch or not ... Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Die Schmetterlinge: Guter Mond, du hängst so stille
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
