Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:39 AM, Jostein Tveit wrote:
>
>>
>> ./src/test/cpp/logunit.cpp is missing "#include <locale.h>" to
>> compile on Solaris 8 with Sun Studio 11.
>>
>> I have only tested RC6, but I think RC7 has the same issue.
>
> I'm sure it would. The issue is that the definition of
> setlocale() is apparently made available by #include <stdlib.h>
> with the other compilers tested, but is documented to be defined
> in <locale.h>.
Should I make a Jira case for this one, or do you handle it?
> Not sure if you are saying you got two compilation errors on the
> unit tests or after you compiled the unit tests, two unit tests
> failed. In either case, it would be great if you could provide
> the either the compilation errors or the test failure reports.
That should be two unit tests errors (not compilation errors).
> Does it look like LOGCXX-244? In that particular case, the unit
> tests fail on MinGW 3.4.5 for an unknown reason perhaps a
> problem in the implementation of the standard C++ library on
> that platform. In that particular case, I thought that it was
> reasonable to note that test failure for that platform but not
> hold up a release.
datetimedateformattestcase fails with
Line 213: expected <avr>, but saw <Apr>
sizebasedrollingtest fails with
Line 342: true != File("output/sbr-test6.0.zip").exists(p)
> If the problem seems platform specific or a problem with how the
> test is written, I'd be in favor with proceeding with log4cxx
> 0.10.0 RC7 and fix the problems in log4cxx 0.10.1. Obviously,
> we have been anything but "release often" (0.9.7 is almost 4
> years old), but hopefully after we get the first release under
> our belt, subsequent releases would follow. In the Apache
> ethos, end user developers are supposed to be working with
> frequent releases, not release candidates or directly with the
> SVN. For many years, we have been in the situation of having a
> buggy release that does not satisfy the current release
> criteria for an ASF release but haven't had a release to which
> to direct users. I think publishing RC7 as is overwhelmingly
> preferable to leaving log4cxx 0.9.7 as the most recent release.
I totally agree! But I think the unit test compilation problem
should be fixed.
> Please provide details as soon as possible, but I would still
> encourage testing and am not ready to scuttle RC7.
Tomorrow I will look more closely to why the two tests fails.
--
Jostein Tveit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
