Philip M. Gollucci wrote: > Geoffrey Young wrote: > >> >> 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... > > Agreed, yeah, I was kind of confused. > >> >> I'm starting to think that ubuntu is taking some major liberties with >> it's >> distribution, but who knows. > > YUCK!! > ! > >> 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... > > Works for me. > > So these 2 are taken care of then :) >
Unfortunatly, in the end that means that stuff written to do what those tests test for under Apache <= 2/0/54 and MP 2.0.2 would just break for no apparent reason. That sucks. Is there anything I can do/check about my 2.0.53 install under ubuntu to verify it is indeed 'different' in some evil way? Thanks, -=Chris
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
