On Saturday 17 January 2004 21:36 CET Sidney Markowitz wrote:
> Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> > for Windows I'm not 100% sure (Sidney,
> > could you please test that everything still works?)
>
> No, there are two problems:
>
> 1) In spamd/SATest.pm remove line 264
>
> $spamdargs =~ tr,/,\\, if $RUNNING_ON_WINDOWS;
That was in there before and I didn't notice that it was removed by your
patch. I killed that line.
> 2) You removed the --stdout option to spamd and left the system call in
> the original style system ("$spamdargs > log/$testname.spamd 2>&1 &");
I never committed it ;-) But I just committed the change I had in mind: Now
spamd isn't started directly but an intermediate script SATest.pl which
does the redirection of STDOUT and STDERR. I'll visit my parents later on
and test it on my mother's Windows box (my SA-under-Windows testbed :).
The --stdout switch had the disadvantage, that it didn't catch *all* output
generated by spamd because the stuff was redirected after some output had
already been generated.
I'll commit the rest of your SATest.pm patches in a few minutes.
But what I really wanted to know, does spamc still compiles successfully
after the move?
Cheers,
Malte
--
[SGT] Simon G. Tatham: "How to Report Bugs Effectively"
<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html>
[ESR] Eric S. Raymond: "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way"
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html>
