From: Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Date: 2011-06-05T15:59:38+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:36748] Re: 1.8.7 release next month

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:18 AM, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> Ping Luis, how's it going?
>

Hello,

r31904 compiles and runs, tests results:
https://gist.github.com/1008713

tcl/tk *did* compile and is working, without the need for manually
backport Hidetoshi NAGAI tk/extconf.rb modifications.

Backport of above mentioned patch (copy of trunk extconf.rb) does not work:
compiling tk
../../../../../../ruby/ext/tk/extconf.rb:41:in `foreach': No such file
or directory - ../../../../../../ruby/ext/tk/config_list.in
(Errno::ENOENT)
        from ../../../../../../ruby/ext/tk/extconf.rb:41
        from ../../../../ruby/ext/extmk.rb:167:in `load'
        from ../../../../ruby/ext/extmk.rb:167:in `extmake'
        from ../../../../ruby/ext/extmk.rb:444
        from ../../../../ruby/ext/extmk.rb:443:in `each'
        from ../../../../ruby/ext/extmk.rb:443
make: *** [all] Error 1

===

I believe we can leave it as is (without the full backport of it)

Comparing this revision against the one for patchlevel 334, there are
some differences in the tests errors:

334:
https://gist.github.com/834607

Versus ruby_1_8_7 branch:
https://gist.github.com/1008713

  9) Error:
test_truncate(TestFileExhaustive):
Errno::EACCES: Permission denied -
C:/Users/Luis/AppData/Local/Temp/rubytest-file20110605-788-ebwvs0/filetest_file_exhaustive.rb.788.test
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:1304:in `unlink'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:1304:in `remove_file'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:1312:in `platform_support'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:1303:in `remove_file'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:1292:in `remove'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:762:in `remove_entry'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:1342:in
`postorder_traverse'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:1346:in
`postorder_traverse'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:1341:in
`postorder_traverse'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:1340:in `each'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:1340:in
`postorder_traverse'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:760:in `remove_entry'
    C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/fileutils.rb:679:in
`remove_entry_secure'
    ../../../../ruby/test/ruby/test_file_exhaustive.rb:31:in `teardown'

 10) Failure:
test_utime(TestFileExhaustive)
[../../../../ruby/test/ruby/test_file_exhaustive.rb:306]:
<Sat Jan 01 00:00:01 -0500 2000> expected but was
<Fri Dec 31 23:00:01 -0500 1999>.

 12) Failure:
test_step_ruby_core_35753(TestRange)
[../../../../ruby/test/ruby/test_range.rb:23]:
<3> expected but was
<4>.

 13) Failure:
test_cgi(TestWEBrickCGI)
    [../../../../ruby/test/webrick/test_cgi.rb:27:in `test_cgi'
     C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/net/http.rb:1054:in `request'
     C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/net/http.rb:2144:in `reading_body'
     C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/net/http.rb:1053:in `request'
     C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/net/http.rb:1037:in `request'
     C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/net/http.rb:543:in `start'
     C:/Users/Luis/Projects/oss/ruby/lib/net/http.rb:1035:in `request'
     ../../../../ruby/test/webrick/test_cgi.rb:26:in `test_cgi'
     ../../../../ruby/test/webrick/utils.rb:44:in `call'
     ../../../../ruby/test/webrick/utils.rb:44:in `start_server'
     ../../../../ruby/test/webrick/utils.rb:52:in `start_httpserver'
     ../../../../ruby/test/webrick/test_cgi.rb:17:in `test_cgi']:
<"/\244\333\244\262/\244\333\244\262"> expected but was
<"/\017U\017\375/\017U\017\375">.

From above failures, the only one that worries me is #12, TestRange failure.

Thoughts?
-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup�ry