> Well, if I had RTFM 'perldoc File::Temp' correctly, I wouldn't have
> gotten the arguments wrong.
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
Sometimes, you just have to explain it to the bear before you understand.
:-)*
--
Email and shopping with the feelgood factor!
55% of income to good causes. http
2008/6/9 James Keenan via RT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Based on our experience with File::Temp in the test suite, I think we
> can avoid calling 'chmod' entirely (regardless of OS) and can simply use
> File::Temp's functional interface (which avoids that warning I mentioned
> in an earlier post).
>
>
On Monday 09 June 2008 05:17:19 James Keenan via RT wrote:
> (We use File::Temp extensively in the testing, but I can't recall a
> situation where I absolutely had to 'chmod' a tempfile. This may just
> be an artifact of the previous way of doing things.)
I agree; it seems unlikely that File::Te
James Keenan via RT a écrit :
On Mon Jun 09 05:00:17 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Determining whether perldoc is installed...
step auto::perldoc died during execution: The fchmod function is
unimplemented at config/auto/perldoc.pm line 42.
On Windows, the Perl function 'chmod' works with f
James Keenan via RT a écrit :
On Sun Jun 08 17:57:56 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patch applied in r28188. Will resolve ticket if no one complains within
1-2 days. Thanks, Andy.
I had no problems running the two existing step tests for this step via
'prove -v t/steps/auto_perldoc*.t.
But
