Add JSON.pm to third_party

Add JSON.pm to third_party

We're using JSON as an exchange format both:
1. To make the existing Perl more modular
   (so we can connect the parser and code generator via intermediate files),
2. To ease porting to Python, so we can connect existing Perl scripts
   to new Python scripts.

This is build-only: the module is used during the build, but not included
in the distributed binary, and thus should not pose licensing problems.

Source: http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MA/MAKAMAKA/JSON-2.59.tar.gz
SHA-1: 8a82c442088ffa0d605747fd5e65f51e037aad94

License is same as Perl, meaning GPL v1+ or Artistic license:
http://search.cpan.org/~makamaka/JSON-2.58/lib/JSON.pm#COPYRIGHT_AND_LICENSE
http://dev.perl.org/licenses/

BUG=239771
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=205057

Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=205157

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-03 02:15:13]

Hi haraken,
Here's the JSON Perl Module!
(Adam: per description, this is part of modularization for porting bindings
generator to Python)
I haven't added a third_party module before, so I'm not sure of detailed
procedure; hope this is ok.

[abarth-chromium, 2013-06-03 02:50:49]

I'd prefer to avoid creating a third_party directory if at all possible.  Is
there some other way of solving this problem?

[abarth-chromium, 2013-06-03 02:51:10]

Oh, this is in the Chromium repo.  Please ignore me.  :)

[haraken, 2013-06-03 06:41:25]

LGTM.

We discussed offline. We're planning to connect the IDL parser and the code
generator via a JSON file, where JSON.pm is needed. We will remove JSON.pm once
we completely replace the Perl scripts with Python.

You need to get LGTM from an OWNER.

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-03 07:05:39]

Hi Brett, Carlos, and Darin,

We're adding a Perl module to third_party, so we need your approval.
This is a temporary addition, while we port the bindings generator from Perl to
Python, using JSON as an interchange format.

I think license is ok -- the code is used only in the build, the module is GPL
v1+, and I've included the source, together with a README.chromium.

If there's anything I should do or any concerns, please advise!

[darin (slow to review), 2013-06-03 16:59:09]

There's a new convention brewing to have owners listed for each third party
module.  Please add a third_party/JSON/OWNERS file with you in it, so that we
can keep track of who is responsible for this module.  Thanks!

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/1/third_party/JSON/README.chromium
File third_party/JSON/README.chromium (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/1/third_party/JSON/README.chrom...
third_party/JSON/README.chromium:12: This module is used in Blink, as part of
the bindings generator
Comments like this can get stale quickly.  Plus if someone is interested in why
this code was added they can always have a look at this CL.

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2013-06-03 19:46:28]

what Darin said.

Also stills need approval from the license person, I think it can be via email,
is that Chris DiBona?

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-04 02:27:02]

On 2013/06/03 16:59:09, darin wrote:
> There's a new convention brewing to have owners listed for each third party
> module.  Please add a third_party/JSON/OWNERS file with you in it, so that we
> can keep track of who is responsible for this module.  Thanks!

Done. OSPO specifies at least two full-time employees, so I've added haraken as
well.

>
https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/1/third_party/JSON/README.chrom...
> third_party/JSON/README.chromium:12: This module is used in Blink, as part of
> the bindings generator
> Comments like this can get stale quickly.  Plus if someone is interested in
why
> this code was added they can always have a look at this CL.

Got it -- removed, and instead rewritten README.chromium to be clearer.
(We're only planning on having this library for a few weeks, but point taken.)

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-04 02:27:38]

On 2013/06/03 19:46:28, cpu wrote:
> Also stills need approval from the license person, I think it can be via
email,
> is that Chris DiBona?

Thanks, got it!
Sent mail to Chris and OSPO folk, CC'ing you, Carlos.

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-04 03:43:25]

Daniel Berlin advised regarding proper procedure, adding as OSPO reviewer.

For reference, procedure is at "Adding third_party Libraries":
http://www.chromium.org/developers/adding-3rd-party-libraries

Also patch to
tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py
to handle missing license headers in code (and in pylint, which was also
barfing).

[darin (slow to review), 2013-06-04 03:47:52]

LGTM

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-04 03:50:57]

Hi Daniel,

Adding you as reviewer and updated patch to handle update checklicenses.py
(handle missing license headers);
(also fixes pylint license failures, which were also present).
Does it look ok?

As I understand, I need approval from:
1. OSPO (eg: Daniel)
2. OWNERS (eg: darin, cpu)
3. security

Thanks!
Nils

[jln (very slow on Chromium), 2013-06-04 04:43:23]

Hey,

since this is for building only, I don't think we (security) will want to review
it.

We would just like to make sure it's not actively malicious.

For ease of tracking, could you do / document (including in commit message) the
following?

- Mention the original source more specifically and give a hash of the source
(If it's git: git hash of check-ed-out revision)
- Retrieve the code as securely as you can (check GPG signatures if any, using
https if available)

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-04 05:02:14]

On 2013/06/04 04:43:23, Julien Tinnes wrote:
> since this is for building only, I don't think we (security) will want to
review
> it.

Thanks Julien!

I'll do the steps below now.

> For ease of tracking, could you do / document (including in commit message)
the
> following?
> 
> - Mention the original source more specifically and give a hash of the source
> (If it's git: git hash of check-ed-out revision)
> - Retrieve the code as securely as you can (check GPG signatures if any, using
> https if available)

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-04 05:53:41]

Hi Julien,

I've added source information, SHA-1 hash, and security checks;
look ok to you?

> For ease of tracking, could you do / document (including in commit message)
the
> following?
>
> - Mention the original source more specifically and give a hash of the source
> (If it's git: git hash of check-ed-out revision)

I've listed source URL and SHA-1 hash of contents in the CL description,
and in README.chromium:
https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/54001/third_party/JSON/README.c...

Source: http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/M/MA/MAKAMAKA/JSON-2.58.tar.gz
SHA-1: d278466392e544385029dcf61267a019a36535e7

> - Retrieve the code as securely as you can (check GPG signatures if any, using
> https if available)

Package is from CPAN, which does not support https or GPG;
there's no mention of either in the FAQ:
http://www.cpan.org/misc/cpan-faq.html

I've added a file containing the SHA-1 hash and added a check to the
"retrieve and build" file at:
get_and_build_json_pm.sh
https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/54001/third_party/JSON/get_and_...

[Daniel Berlin, 2013-06-04 06:09:28]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-05 02:23:28]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/nbarth@chromium.org/15736030/54001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-05 02:35:31]

Retried try job too often on chromium_presubmit for step(s) presubmit
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=chromium_p...

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-05 02:48:06]

Hi Paweł and Lei,

I need an OWNERS approval due to change in checklicenses.py
I've added whitelists for the JSON.pm model I'm adding here,
together with pylint (existing failure).
These are both build-time only (not included in build), hence GPL ok.

This makes checklicenses.py pass, in compliance with:
http://www.chromium.org/developers/adding-3rd-party-libraries

JSON.pm has license information at the *bottom* of the file;
this is common in Perl modules on CPAN.

Thanks!

Best,
Nils

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2013-06-05 03:04:23]

NAK in current shape.

I can help with the necessary modification, but the suppression list you're
modifying is not intended for new code - it was used to suppress all the
existing problems.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicense...
File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicense...
tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:242: 'UNKNOWN',
New files should have this resolved. The file has a license header - so we
should make licensecheck.pl recognize it.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicense...
tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:387:
'third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled': [
Why is it here? I don't see this patch having anything to do with that
directory.

[Lei Zhang, 2013-06-05 03:08:57]

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicenses/check...
File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicenses/check...
tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:242: 'UNKNOWN',
On 2013/06/05 03:04:23, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> New files should have this resolved. The file has a license header - so we
> should make licensecheck.pl recognize it.

Not all files being checked in have the license though.

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-05 03:22:56]

On 2013/06/05 03:04:23, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> I can help with the necessary modification, but the suppression list you're
> modifying is not intended for new code - it was used to suppress all the
> existing problems.

Got it.

>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicense...
> tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:242: 'UNKNOWN',
> New files should have this resolved. The file has a license header - so we
> should make licensecheck.pl recognize it.

The Perl modules have the license at the *bottom*, in POD format.

These are generally:

=head1 COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE

Copyright 2007-2012 by Makamaka Hannyaharamitu

This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the same terms as Perl itself. 

=cut


There's already a check for
/This library is free software; you can redistribute it and\/or modify it under
the same terms as Perl itself/
in licensecheck.pl
...but it seems it's not catching this (b/c it's at the bottom??).

>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicense...
> tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:387:
> 'third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled': [
> Why is it here? I don't see this patch having anything to do with that
> directory.

This fixes an existing failure; I just added it while I was there.
On Chromium HEAD, checklicenses.py currently fails:
cd $CHROMIUM_ROOT && src/tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py

returns:
'third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled/pylint/pyreverse/diagrams.py'
has non-whitelisted license 'GPL (v2 or later)'
...etc., etc.

As this is an existing issue, would you like me to post a CL with just this
change?

[Lei Zhang, 2013-06-05 03:29:40]

On 2013/06/05 03:22:56, Nils Barth wrote:
> On 2013/06/05 03:04:23, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicense...
> > tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:387:
> > 'third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled': [
> > Why is it here? I don't see this patch having anything to do with that
> > directory.
> 
> This fixes an existing failure; I just added it while I was there.
> On Chromium HEAD, checklicenses.py currently fails:
> cd $CHROMIUM_ROOT && src/tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py
> 
> returns:
>
'third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled/pylint/pyreverse/diagrams.py'
> has non-whitelisted license 'GPL (v2 or later)'
> ...etc., etc.
> 
> As this is an existing issue, would you like me to post a CL with just this
> change?

I have third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty, but not the
autoinstalled subdir. That must be local to your machine, otherwise the main
waterfall bots that run checklicenses.py would have gone red.

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-05 03:31:37]

Hi Paweł,
Thanks for the swift feedback!

Concretely, shall I:
1. Post a CL so licensecheck.pl checks the *footer* for licenses as well?
2. Post a CL to special-case the separate (and failing)
third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled
 ?

On 2013/06/05 03:04:23, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> I can help with the necessary modification, but the suppression list you're
> modifying is not intended for new code - it was used to suppress all the
> existing problems.

Got it.

>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicense...
> tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:242: 'UNKNOWN',
> New files should have this resolved. The file has a license header - so we
> should make licensecheck.pl recognize it.

The Perl modules and scripts have the license at the *bottom*, which is why
licensecheck.pl is not catching these.
This is very common in CPAN modules, so perhaps worth adding to the script.

The license is in Perl's POD format, as in:

=head1 COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE

Copyright 2005-2013 by Makamaka Hannyaharamitu

This library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the same terms as Perl itself. 

=cut

licensecheck.pl already has a check for Perl; it matches:
/This program is free software; you can redistribute it and\/or modify it under
the same terms as Perl itself/
...but it's not catching this because it's at the bottom.

The easiest fix would be to licensecheck.pl to read the header *and* footer.
Shall I post a CL for this?


>
https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicense...
> tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:387:
> 'third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled': [
> Why is it here? I don't see this patch having anything to do with that
> directory.

This fixes an existing failure; I just added it while I was there.
On Chromium HEAD, checklicenses.py currently fails:
cd $CHROMIUM_ROOT && src/tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py

returns:
'third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/autoinstalled/pylint/pyreverse/diagrams.py'
has non-whitelisted license 'GPL (v2 or later)'
...etc., etc.

As this is an existing issue, would you like me to post a CL with just this
change?

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-05 03:37:20]

On 2013/06/05 03:29:40, Lei Zhang wrote:
> I have third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty, but not the
> autoinstalled subdir. That must be local to your machine, otherwise the main
> waterfall bots that run checklicenses.py would have gone red.

Thanks for checking Lei!
I checked further, and turns out the directory is autogenerated, via:
chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/Tools/Scripts/webkitpy/thirdparty/__init__.py
Thus the main waterfall bots won't go red, but when a developer runs
checklicenses.py locally
(when checking their new package), they get this noise.
Any suggestions for making this easier or making this local warning go away?

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-05 04:42:39]

On 2013/06/05 03:08:57, Lei Zhang wrote:
> Not all files being checked in have the license though.

Following up:
per Lei's comment, the following very small files do not have a license header
or footer,
hence even with a fixed licensecheck.pl (I have a local fix, will post shortly)
these have UNKNOWN type:
third_party/JSON/out/lib/perl5/JSON/backportPP/Boolean.pm
third_party/JSON/JSON-2.58/blib/lib/JSON/backportPP/Boolean.pm
third_party/JSON/JSON-2.58/lib/JSON/backportPP/Boolean.pm
third_party/JSON/JSON-2.58/t/_unicode_handling.pm

Paweł, Lei - what should we do?

[Daniel Berlin, 2013-06-05 18:03:06]

FWIW: Given the files do not contain *anything* real (they are completely
functional and exist mainly because of perl hilariousness), i'm fine with them
not having a header, adding a header, or anything in between :)

I defer to Pawel/et al to figure out what makes the most sense (IE fixing
licensecheck vs adding a header)

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2013-06-05 19:07:15]

On 2013/06/05 04:42:39, Nils Barth wrote:
> On 2013/06/05 03:08:57, Lei Zhang wrote:
> > Not all files being checked in have the license though.
> 
> Following up:
> per Lei's comment, the following very small files do not have a license header
> or footer,
> hence even with a fixed licensecheck.pl (I have a local fix, will post
shortly)
> these have UNKNOWN type:
> third_party/JSON/out/lib/perl5/JSON/backportPP/Boolean.pm
> third_party/JSON/JSON-2.58/blib/lib/JSON/backportPP/Boolean.pm
> third_party/JSON/JSON-2.58/lib/JSON/backportPP/Boolean.pm
> third_party/JSON/JSON-2.58/t/_unicode_handling.pm
> 
> Paweł, Lei - what should we do?

Please report this upstream (preferably via a bug tracker, so you can reference
a URL), and add these as suppressions to checklicenses.py referencing the URL if
possible.

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-06 07:32:45]

> On 2013/06/05 04:42:39, Nils Barth wrote:
> > per Lei's comment, the following very small files do not have a license
header
> > or footer,

On 2013/06/05 19:07:15, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> Please report this upstream (preferably via a bug tracker, so you can
reference
> a URL), and add these as suppressions to checklicenses.py referencing the URL
if
> possible.

Done!
CPAN #85915 for JSON: Missing "COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE" sections for 3 dummy files
https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=85915

Once the licensecheck.pl footer fix lands in:
CL 16426003: Add footer license check to licensecheck.pl and Perl to
checklicenses.py
https://codereview.chromium.org/16426003/

...this will just add a 'Perl' (manual ok) and 'UNKNOWN' supression to
checklicenses.py,
as requested.

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-06 07:35:12]

On 2013/06/05 18:03:06, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> FWIW: Given the files do not contain *anything* real (they are completely
> functional and exist mainly because of perl hilariousness), i'm fine with them
> not having a header, adding a header, or anything in between :)
> 
> I defer to Pawel/et al to figure out what makes the most sense (IE fixing
> licensecheck vs adding a header)

Thanks Daniel!

Per Paweł, I've added an override for now, filed a bug at CPAN, and referenced
it:
CPAN #85915 for JSON: Missing "COPYRIGHT AND LICENSE" sections for 3 dummy files
https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=85915

I trust you're not just saying "anything in between" to avoid Loki's Wager...
>;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager

[Paweł Hajdan Jr., 2013-06-06 18:16:02]

Just minor comments, feel free to check in if you remove the .tar.gz file.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/84001/third_party/JSON/J...
File third_party/JSON/JSON-2.59.tar.gz.sha1 (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/84001/third_party/JSON/J...
third_party/JSON/JSON-2.59.tar.gz.sha1:1:
8a82c442088ffa0d605747fd5e65f51e037aad94  JSON-2.59.tar.gz
I didn't notice it before, but why exactly are you checking in the tarball into
the tree? We usually don't do that.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/84001/third_party/devscr...
File third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/84001/third_party/devscr...
third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:290: my $header = '';
Please remove these modifications from this CL.

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/84001/tools/checklicense...
File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):

https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/15736030/diff/84001/tools/checklicense...
tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:242: 'Perl',  # Build-only
nit: End each comment with a dot, here and below.

[cpu_(ooo_6.6-7.5), 2013-06-06 19:35:35]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-07 09:09:10]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/nbarth@chromium.org/15736030/97001

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-07 09:10:13]

Thanks Paweł,
Comments addressed (removed tarball and licensecheck.pl changes), committing.

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicenses/check...
File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/54001/tools/checklicenses/check...
tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:242: 'UNKNOWN',
To follow up:
adding 'Perl' in general, and 'UNKNOWN' due to files with missing license.

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/84001/third_party/JSON/JSON-2.5...
File third_party/JSON/JSON-2.59.tar.gz.sha1 (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/84001/third_party/JSON/JSON-2.5...
third_party/JSON/JSON-2.59.tar.gz.sha1:1:
8a82c442088ffa0d605747fd5e65f51e037aad94  JSON-2.59.tar.gz
On 2013/06/06 18:16:03, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> I didn't notice it before, but why exactly are you checking in the tarball
into
> the tree? We usually don't do that.

Didn't know policy for this - thanks!
I've removed the tarball from the CL and documented this on the wiki.

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/84001/third_party/devscripts/li...
File third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/84001/third_party/devscripts/li...
third_party/devscripts/licensecheck.pl:290: my $header = '';
On 2013/06/06 18:16:03, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> Please remove these modifications from this CL.

Got it, handled in:
Issue 16426003: Add footer license check to licensecheck.pl and Perl to
checklicenses.py
https://codereview.chromium.org/16426003/

(B/c of adding 'UNKNOWN' below, ok for this CL to land before the
licensecheck.pl one)

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/84001/tools/checklicenses/check...
File tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/15736030/diff/84001/tools/checklicenses/check...
tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py:242: 'Perl',  # Build-only
On 2013/06/06 18:16:03, Paweł Hajdan Jr. wrote:
> nit: End each comment with a dot, here and below.

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-07 09:23:24]

Retried try job too often on chromium_presubmit for step(s) presubmit
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=chromium_p...

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-07 09:36:54]

Paweł, I need at LGTM from you for the tools/checklicenses/checklicenses.py
changes, if you please.
("Feel free to check it in" isn't recognized)

[Lei Zhang, 2013-06-07 17:36:02]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-07 17:36:12]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/nbarth@chromium.org/15736030/97001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-07 18:24:02]

Retried try job too often on win_rel for step(s) base_unittests, browser_tests,
cacheinvalidation_unittests, cc_unittests, check_deps, chrome_frame_net_tests,
chrome_frame_tests, chrome_frame_unittests, chromedriver2_unittests,
components_unittests, content_browsertests, content_unittests, crypto_unittests,
gpu_unittests, installer_util_unittests, interactive_ui_tests, ipc_tests,
jingle_unittests, media_unittests, mini_installer_test, nacl_integration,
net_unittests, ppapi_unittests, printing_unittests, remoting_unittests,
sql_unittests, sync_integration_tests, sync_unit_tests, unit_tests
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_rel&nu...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-08 10:46:09]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/nbarth@chromium.org/15736030/97001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-08 11:10:11]

Retried try job too often on win_x64_rel for step(s) compile
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=win_x64_re...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-08 11:33:02]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/nbarth@chromium.org/15736030/166002

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-08 13:47:21]

Change committed as 205057

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-10 03:47:31]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/nbarth@chromium.org/15736030/174001

[Nils Barth (inactive), 2013-06-10 03:51:05]

FYI, this was reverted;
I've fixed the issue and am resubmitting.

Details:
This was reverted by Carlos in:
Issue 16539003: Revert 205057 "Add JSON.pm to third_party"
https://codereview.chromium.org/16539003/
because it broke the check_perms check in ChromiumOS.

This had been flagged earlier in the presubmit check,
but the test bots passed and so I didn't realize it would break anything.
I'd already filed an upstream bug at CPAN:
https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=85917

I've fixed this by adding a "fix permissions" step
to the download-and-build script.
(With an ed script in a heredoc ;-)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-06-10 08:19:12]

Change committed as 205157