Lars Balker Rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We'll postpone deciding on this one until later - I've attached a
> patch to env.t that tests the env-implementation on all platforms, and
> doesn't fail on Solaris.
Thanks, applied.
leo
Lars Balker Rasmussen (via RT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> # New Ticket Created by Lars Balker Rasmussen
> # Please include the string: [perl #23025]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=23025 >
>
>
> There's
Benjamin Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Lars Balker Rasmussen wrote:
>> However, now the 4th test fails on Solaris (and most likely other OS's
>> witout setenv/unsetenv). This is because the test relies on a key
>> disappearing from %ENV when it's been unsetenv'ed - this doesn't
>> happen
Lars Balker Rasmussen wrote:
>
> # New Ticket Created by Lars Balker Rasmussen
> # Please include the string: [perl #23025]
> # in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
> # http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=23025 >
>
> There's no reason to test for the pr
Lars Balker Rasmussen (via RT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's no reason to test for the presence of setenv/unsetenv in libc
> - these functions are emulated if not present.
I'll just reiterate: Configures test for the presence of setenv and
unsetenv should not cause env.t to to skip the env
# New Ticket Created by Lars Balker Rasmussen
# Please include the string: [perl #23025]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=23025 >
There's no reason to test for the presence of setenv/unsetenv in libc
- these f
