Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 3623 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2004 20:25:53 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Sep 2004 20:25:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 59782 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2004 20:25:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 59743 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2004 20:25:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 59729 invoked by uid 99); 7 Sep 2004 20:25:49 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: domain of jorton@redhat.com designates 66.187.233.31 as permitted sender) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 21:25:43 +0100 From: Joe Orton To: Stas Bekman Cc: Ken Simpson , modperl@perl.apache.org, dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: [mp2] NetBSD-1.6.2 modperl 1.99_16 httpd 2.0.51-dev make test errors Message-ID: <20040907202543.GA18955@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Stas Bekman , Ken Simpson , modperl@perl.apache.org, dev@apr.apache.org References: <413DB072.6040202@stason.org> <20040907152601.GB28348@mailchannels.com> <413E10E7.6080201@stason.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <413E10E7.6080201@stason.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 03:49:59PM -0400, Stas Bekman wrote: > Ken Simpson wrote: > >>>Ken, Stas, done as advised. The only test which is failing now (and was > >>>failing before) is: > >> > >>Mikhail, Ken, please submit that patch to dev /at/ apr.apache.org > >>http://apr.apache.org/. Hopefully it'll get into 2.0.51 release. Or may > >>be it's too late. > > > > > >The patch has already gone into APR CVS. > > I thought that patch was only for OpenBSD. Is that not the case? That's correct, this is currently fixed only for OpenBSD, and I'd prefer to see the output of the test case on NetBSD to see why it fails there before proceeding to use the same fix for that platform. joe