On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Nathan Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> >
> No - i'll give that a try and see what happens.
> -Nathan
I must be an idiot, but how do you do this? On WinXP, when I "set
BAD_VAR=", nothing is added. When I set an existing variable, it's
removed from the environment. Is this something that can be done on
other versions of Windows?
-Nathan
>
>
>
> > > 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 I noticed that the apr-iconv is also a bit out of date.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
> >
>
