Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 9791 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2004 04:31:11 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Nov 2004 04:31:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 50443 invoked by uid 500); 12 Nov 2004 04:31:08 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 50415 invoked by uid 500); 12 Nov 2004 04:31:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact apreq-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 50391 invoked by uid 99); 12 Nov 2004 04:31:08 -0000 Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [142.132.65.108] (HELO theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca) (142.132.65.108) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:31:08 -0800 Received: from theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id iAC4SSAe008268; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:28:28 -0600 Received: from localhost (randy@localhost) by theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id iAC4SRA9008264; Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:28:28 -0600 Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:28:27 -0600 (CST) From: Randy Kobes To: Joe Schaefer cc: apreq dev list Subject: Re: FAIL libapreq-1.3 powerpc-openbsd 3.5 In-Reply-To: <87fz57shck.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com> Message-ID: References: <87fz57shck.fsf@gemini.sunstarsys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Joe Schaefer wrote: > CPANTS strikes again. Any clues? There's quite a few instances on the cpan-testers list of CPANPLUS not following dependencies correctly, so this might be a problem with the mod_perl installation (theoretically, mod_perl should have been built and tested successfully before it tried libapreq, but that seems doubtful for mod_perl, as everything is done without human intervention). Unless the tester is willing to supply further information (some do, and some don't), one probably should just ignore these reports. -- best regards, randy