Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of jorton@redhat.com designates
 66.187.233.31 as permitted sender)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 12:54:05 +0000
From: Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com>
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] we need to init _unknown?
Message-ID: <20061127125405.GA18933@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: dev@apr.apache.org
References: <4565CF0E.4080100@rowe-clan.net> <4565DF3A.6060905@rowe-clan.net>
 <20061124091315.GA15878@redhat.com> <456A81F2.5010906@rowe-clan.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <456A81F2.5010906@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i

On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 12:13:06AM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
> > (The test_get_addr test was to check for a ->remote_addr_unknown 
> > handling bug alone, FWIW: PR 32737)
> 
> Right - and it erroneously invokes connect against 0.0.0.0 no matter which
> way I patch this.  We need to determine that connect-to 0.0.0.0 is portable
> behavior and emulate, correct the patch to connect to a non-ephemeral addr,
> or revert the test.

I've changed it to use 127.0.0.1 on the trunk; does that help?

> And we need to roll a tarball - this is getting silly.  But I'm not rolling
> with a borked test.

The test has been in 1.2.x since September 2005 - did something change 
since then?

Regards,

joe