On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 03:43:59PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >OK, I'm working on this conversion and am hitting a roadblock due to mp1
> >not supporting the PerlSwitches directive.
>
> No need to:
That's a nice solution for enabling taintmode and warnings, but I was
referring to adding the pat
William McKee wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 03:43:59PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
OK, I'm working on this conversion and am hitting a roadblock due to mp1
not supporting the PerlSwitches directive.
No need to:
That's a nice solution for enabling taintmode and warnings, but I was
referring to addi
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 04:25:25PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >I figured as much. So it seems that the only solution for loading
> >modules under mp1 is via modperl_extra.in.
>
> s/modperl_extra.in/modperl_extra.pl/
That's what I meant to say :/.
> It's not the best if you need to handle bot
William McKee wrote:
[...]
And again I don't understand why do you need to add 'lib' when it's already
added with APACHE_TEST_LIVE_DEV=1, look at your modperl_startup.pl it
should be there.
You are right, I don't need to include the 'use lib' statement in the
modperl_extra.pl file. I don't even
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 05:02:39PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >You are right, I don't need to include the 'use lib' statement in the
> >modperl_extra.pl file. I don't even need to use my module (e.g.
> >Apache::TestTest). I was just trying to follow the documentation at
> >perl.apache.org and appl
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:21:13AM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> >>and Apache::Test->config in perl files:
> >>my $dir = catdir Apache::Test::config()->{vars}->{documentroot}, '...',
> >>
> >>We need better docs for this configuration issue. Patches are very
> >>welcome.
> >
> >
> >I'm not sure I fo
William McKee wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:21:13AM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
and Apache::Test->config in perl files:
my $dir = catdir Apache::Test::config()->{vars}->{documentroot}, '...',
We need better docs for this configuration issue. Patches are very
welcome.
I'm not sure I follow your
flood STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/07/01 20:55:12 $]
Release:
1.0: Released July 23, 2002
milestone-03: Tagged January 16, 2002
ASF-transfer: Released July 17, 2001
milestone-02: Tagged August 13, 2
httpd-test/perl-framework STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2002/03/09 05:22:48 $]
Stuff to do:
* finish the t/TEST exit code issue (ORed with 0x2C if
framework failed)
* change existing tests that frob the DocumentRoot (e.g.,
t/modules/
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:41:01PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Cool, now I get the thing running.
Great. Are you getting any failures? Please read my notes in
testnotes.txt.
> What is this diff? Should I apply it
> against [1]? Why not just update your snapshot?
Sorry, this is against the test
ok, here's my latest problem...
given a 3rd party module installation
$ perl Makefile.PL -apxs /foo/bin/apxs
two issues arrive
1) $HOME/.apache-test is created when the tests are run, not when the module
is installed. which means that even without any actual installs
2) -apxs is subsequently
Stas Bekman wrote:
> any objections for this patch?
> -if (-e $result) {
> -debug "$file successfully resolved to existing file $result";
well, you're removing the file check in favor of a directory check. in the
interests of debugging, I'd probably like to preserve the check and t
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
any objections for this patch?
-if (-e $result) {
-debug "$file successfully resolved to existing file $result";
well, you're removing the file check in favor of a directory check. in the
interests of debugging, I'd probably like to preserve t
Geoffrey Young wrote:
ok, here's my latest problem...
given a 3rd party module installation
$ perl Makefile.PL -apxs /foo/bin/apxs
two issues arrive
1) $HOME/.apache-test is created when the tests are run, not when the module
is installed. which means that even without any actual installs
I think
William McKee wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 08:41:01PM -0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
Cool, now I get the thing running.
Great. Are you getting any failures? Please read my notes in
testnotes.txt.
Yes. I will look at the failures soonish.
What is this diff? Should I apply it
against [1]? Why not just
> In any case, adding a check for a file is fine with me as long as you
> s/warning/debug/, so it won't appear in the normal output and users
> don't send false complaints. How about adding it as an extra check on
> top of this patch?
that all sounds fine.
--Geoff
> which means that even without any actual installs
>
>
> I think you didn't finish the sentence?
which means that even without any actually installs [2]
:)
> I think because we test only for httpd's setting. that must be the
> reason. Try passing -httpd instead for now.
I will
>
>> I kno
17 matches
Mail list logo
