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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
