On 1 April 2008 Nathan Beyer wrote:
> I've just finished testing on Win x86 with the new apr code and no
> patches. All of the kernel.test, smoke.test, reg.test and cunit.test
> pass without failure or error.
>
> If there's no objection, I'm going to update to the latest apr source
> and remove the patches tonight.
Just to make sure, did you define some environment variable with no string
value ("" empty string) before running kernel tests?
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've tested apr 1.2.12, apr-util 1.2.12, apr-iconv 1.2.1 on Linux
> > x86_64 with the patched unix code removed and the DRLVM tests seem to
> > all be passing. I'm running the tests again to be sure. I'm also
> > running the tests on Linux x86.
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:22 PM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Is there any specific reason we're still on apr/apr-util 1.2.6?
> > >
> > > I'm trying to get things running on Leopard and it seems 1.2.12 is
> > > necessity. How do we want to approach such an upgrade?
> > >
> > > I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.
> > >
> > > -Nathan
--
Gregory
