mh, no. I think some logic needs tweaking, as file is definitely present
(it's an hard dependency of diffoscope), and that test should just be
skipped.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:42 PM Chris Lamb wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > At the very least, it seems this should be a versioned test
Steve Langasek wrote:
> At the very least, it seems this should be a versioned test dep on file (>=
> 5.37), but perhaps it should also be a versioned runtime dependency. I
> haven't looked to see what the impact is of the wrong version of 'file' when
> DIFFOSCOPE_TESTS_FAIL_ON_MISSING_TOOLS is
Hi Niko,
> > I guess in theory but if I recall the details correctly, I don't
> > /think/ this was going to be a trivial patch to Archive::Zip and my
> > Perl-fu is/was a bit weak. Would pkg-perl apply and upload a patch
> > anyway?
[…]
> Obviously features would be best developed upstream.
