Re: [MacPerl-Porters] [PATCH: 5.6.0]regression test patches for:t:comp: folder

[Paul Schinder <schinder@pobox.com>]

At 5:57 PM -0700 5/14/00, Prymmer/Kahn wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I found that my miniperl was able to get through all of :t:cmd:*.t
>with no modifications.  However :comp: was another matter - and in fact
>I am still not happy with the results for tests (such as cpp.t) that
>invoke perl via C<system()> or backticks.  It is possible to have
>perl be a served tool is it not?  If so then the passage of the relevant
>tests would depend on installing perl as a tool before the tests can
>pass - something that apparently plagues a part of the tests on Win32.
>
>At any rate this patch ough to get you through most of :comp: with the
>possible exception of cpp.t:
>
>diff -ru :comp.orig:colon.t :comp:colon.t
>--- :comp.orig:colon.t	Tue Jul 20 17:18:11 1999
>+++ :comp:colon.t	Sun May 14 10:39:12 2000
>@@ -9,7 +9,12 @@
>
>  BEGIN {
>      chdir 't' if -d 't';
>-    unshift @INC, '../lib';
>+	if ($^O eq 'MacOS') {
>+        unshift @INC, '::lib:';
>+	}
>+	else {
>+        unshift @INC, '../lib';
>+	}
>  }

This, and the others like it, seem to be candidates for File::Spec. 
The tests are run by perl rather than miniperl, right?  So we should 
at this point have access to File::Spec, or are we caught by a 
chicken/egg problem?

use File::Spec::Functions;

unshift @INC, catfile(updir(),"lib");

>
>BTW I am collecting these patches in:
>
>    http://www.best.com/~pvhp/mac/macperl5.6.0/*.patch
>
>Have fun.
>
>Peter Prymmer
>
>
>
>
>==== Want to unsubscribe from this list?
>==== Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to macperl-porters-request@macperl.org

-- 
--
Paul Schinder
schinder@pobox.com

==== Want to unsubscribe from this list?
==== Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to macperl-porters-request@macperl.org