Randy Kobes wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005, Stas Bekman wrote:
Randy Kobes wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Stas Bekman wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
I guess if there are no objections I'll commit it on Monday.
Sounds good to me - I tested the patch out on Win32 with the
Apache-Test tests and also the apreq tests (which involve
some cgi tests), and these worked fine.
Thanks Randy, but did you try removing the < 62 check? It's only
different from the current implementation if that exec trick is used
(i.e. if you have a very long path to perl.exe). So try to s/62/2/ or
something like that. Thanks!
Thanks for pointing that out, Stas - I just did a s/62/2/ in
the check, to force the exec trick, and both the Apache-Test
and apreq tests still all passed.
Thanks a lot, Randy. Now committed.
--
_____________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://stason.org/
MailChannels: Assured Messaging(TM) http://mailchannels.com/
The "Practical mod_perl" book http://modperlbook.org/
http://perl.apache.org/ http://perl.org/ http://logilune.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
