Now I'm getting this on Linux (RH 5.2 with Perl 5.6.1):
http11/basicauthUse of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) at
http11/basicauth.t line 28.
dubious
Test returned status 255 (wstat 65280, 0xff00)
DIED. FAILED test 3
Failed 1/3 tests, 66.67% okay
http11/chunked..Use
On Wed, 5 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Now I'm getting this on Linux (RH 5.2 with Perl 5.6.1):
...
> I'm *not* seeing these on more recent Linux versions (also
> with Perl 5.6.*)..
what version of LWP? those tests should be skipped unless >= 5.60
if >= 5.60 output of t/TEST -d lwp
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> what version of LWP?
5.62
> if >= 5.60 output of t/TEST -d lwp t/http11/basicauth.t
> would be useful.
Working on it..
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"All right
Doug MacEachern wrote:
>
> if >= 5.60 output of t/TEST -d lwp t/http11/basicauth.t
> would be useful.
No real joy:
http11/basicauth1..3
GET http://localhost:8529/authany/index.html:
User-Agent: libwww-perl/5.62
HTTP/1.1 401 (Unauthorized) Authorization Required
Connection: Keep-Alive
Date:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Client-Response-Num: 3
...
> my $request_num = $res->header('Client-Request-Num');
...
> Was that supposed to be 'Client-Response-Num' instead of 'Request'?
no, that's correct for lwp 5.60. i just made a change so both versions
are supported.
* On 2001-12-06 at 18:35,
Doug MacEachern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > Client-Response-Num: 3
> ...
> > my $request_num = $res->header('Client-Request-Num');
> ...
> > Was that supposed to be 'Client-Response-Num'
* On 2001-12-06 at 18:43,
Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> excited the electrons to say:
>
> Eh. So why am I not seeing Client-Request-Num in the LWP
> output? Rrrr...
Hmm.. maybe because 'User-Agent: lwp-request/1.37' instead of 1.40?
Which is what I get on another system where thi
On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Eh. So why am I not seeing Client-Request-Num in the LWP
> output? Rrrr...
because your are using lwp 5.62?
the change was actually made in 5.61, from Changes:
"- Client-Request-Num renamed to Client-Response-Num"
