Proc::FastSpawn test failure

[Marc Lehmann]

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 11:00:37AM -0700, Darin McBride <darin.mcbride at shaw.ca> wrote:
> > Sorry, no, "relocatable" doesn't mean "break our perl".
> 
> Well, in general, people use $^X to compensate.

In general, people use Config to compensate.

> Have you tried using - Duserelocatableinc?

No, why should I?

> > Which doesn't relocate your perl, nor make your perl relocatable. It can
> > help with the process, but as the name implies, doesn't do the whole job
> > obviously.
> 
> The instructions do indicate that this is all that is required.  From 
> perl589delta:

Then this is clearly a bug in your Perl, don't you agree?

> So long as you move the entire tree as a unit, which is all I've done (I just 
> didn't install it to the original location first), it's supposed to be fine.

Well, it obviously isn't as you found out. Have you tried reporting this?

> Arguably, this is a bug in perl itself (see
> https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=112448 ). But this is where
> we're at at the moment.

Darin, I never argued that there is no failure when running
Proc::FastSpawn's test suite. I argued that your perl installation is
broken (and not Proc::FastSpawns test), which clearly is the case.

> > You don't have to agree at all - it's up to you if you want to be
> > unreasonable.
> 
> That's an interesting perspective.

Well, since you already *are* aware that this isn't an issue with
Proc::FastSpawn but with your broken perl install, this whole exchange shows
that you are becoming more and more unreasonable. What's the point of all
this when you already know:

a) that the bug isn't in Proc::FastSpawn
b) it's easy to fix.

> > Your perl has a broken Config. It's broken because it gives the wrong
> > values for docmented configuration directives. That makes it broken
> > whether you agree to it or not.
> 
> I'm following the documentation.

And so does Proc::FastSpawn. What's your point?

> $^X is the most reliable method of determining that

You keep claiming that despite being told it's not - even by the perl
documentation itself which says that $^X is unreliable and you should use
$Config{perlpath}, in the documentation for $^X!

Why do you keep bringing up this bullshit? Are you trying very hard to be
hipocritical?

> > The relocatable issue is a red herring. Being relocatable or relocating
> > your perl does not cause the problem. Breaking your perl config by giving
> > bogus values to modules is the problem.
> 
> I didn't do any of that, please don't unreasonably accuse.

1. The config contains bogus values that are given to modules.
2. The config is the result of the configuration you gave it.
3. => You gave bogus values to modules.

> using $^X instead of $Config{perlpath}.  My original suggestion for this issue 
> was really to do pretty much exactly what you are doing in AnyEvent::Fork: use 
> $^X,

AnyEvent::Fork relies on $Config{perlpath} to find perl. It will break
with your broken perl config as well.

> was it.  That should work fine even with relocatable perl, when following the 
> instructions to do so, as I have been doing.

But it won't.

Anyways, there is clearly nothing to say from my side again. You are
completely unreasonable, by just repeating the same unfounded (and
disproven) claims while being fully aware that the problem is in your
broken perl installation. That makes it impossible to argue with you.

-- 
                The choice of a       Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
      -----==-     _GNU_              http://www.deliantra.net
      ----==-- _       generation
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __      Marc Lehmann
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /      schmorp at schmorp.de
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\