perl-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Christopher H. Laco" <cl...@chrislaco.com>
Subject Re: [RELEASE CANDIDATE] mod_perl-2.0.2 RC1
Date Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:55:14 GMT
Geoffrey Young wrote:
> 
> Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> 
>>Christopher H. Laco wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/modperl/2849479
>>
>>t/apache/content_length_header.t               27    3  11.11%  2 5 17
>># testing : GET /TestApache__content_length_header C-L header
>># expected: 0
>># received: undef
>>not ok 2
>># testing : GET /TestApache__content_length_header?set_content_length
>>C-L header
>># expected: 0
>># received: 25
>>not ok 5
>># testing : HEAD /TestApache__content_length_header?set_content_length
>>C-L header
>># expected: undef
>># received: 25
>>not ok 17
>>
>>That may have been me.  I tweaked this test to work in 2.0.54 and SVN
>>HEAD aka 2.1.x tobe 2.2.
>>
>>Might have borked something in 2.0.53.  At any rate, this is likely just
>>the test thats in error. I'll look into this tonight.
> 
> 
> I thought so to, but it looks like we had test cases for 2.1 and greater,
> and 2.0.X.  the 2.1 cases were removed because > 2.1 was finally brought
> into sync with 2.0.X.
> 
> in other words, I don't think your change did anything.
> 
> on the other hand, chris is getting 2.1-type numbers.  this is how it used
> to look, for example
> 
> -        my $cl      = have_min_apache_version(2.1) ? 25 : 0;
> -        my $head_cl = have_min_apache_version(2.1) ? $cl : undef;
> 
> so chris is getting 25 instead of 0 and undef, which is how 2.1 used to
> report back things.  I can't recall a single failure of this test that
> wasn't 2.1-specific...
> 
> I'm starting to think that ubuntu is taking some major liberties with it's
> distribution, but who knows.
> 
> at any rate, you should know that the t/apache tests are there only for
> informative reasons.  basically content_length_header.t is letting you know
> how httpd-proper will behave wrt the C-L header under various conditions.
> specifically, it doesn't reflect on mod_perl beyond how mod_perl allows you
> to twiddle httpd things - the test failure is just letting you know that
> 2.0.53 should be behaving a specific way and it isn't (and that it's httpd's
> fault and not mod_perl's).
> 
> so, for that test specifically don't worry about it.  I guess.  I mean, if
> various distributions are going to package httpd but muck with it's innards,
> there's not much we can do about it...
> 
> --Geoff
> 
> 
I wonder if it's related to this at all:
http://www.frsirt.com/english/advisories/2005/1325

I'll have to check my version from Synaptic.
If I feel like having a good time, maybe I'll uninstall Apache2 and try
compiling my own and rerunning the 2.0.2 RC again. That should prove to
be a disaster of some sort on part part. :-)

-=Chris

Mime
View raw message