Re: [RELEASE CANDIDATE] Apache-Test-1.43 RC1
"Edward J. Sabol" <[email protected]> Tue, 2 Nov 2021 23:44:11 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.apache.mod-perl.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Oct 26, 2021, at 3:28 AM, Steve Hay <[email protected]> = wrote: > Thanks for testing, and apologies for not getting back to you sooner. >=20 > Unfortunately, I don't know anything about building Apache/mod_perl on = *nix systems, and was hoping that someone else might step in with some = answers here. Oh. > Do you get the same behaviour with Apache-Test-1.42, or are these new = problems in 1.43-rc1? Yes, I get the same behavior with 1.42. At a minimum, I need to ln -s /path/to/my/apache/modules inside the Apache-Test-1.43-rc1 directory and create a = t/conf/httpd.conf.in file (as suggested by the README) with a bunch of = LoadModule commands in it to get the httpd server to start up in any = kind of useful state. The resulting "make test" output still skips the tests of mod_cgi, = mod_perl, etc., even though I explicitly load them in = t/conf/httpd.conf.in. I think I've tracked down the reason for this to = Apache::TestConfig's modules hash doesn't include all of the modules = that are actually loaded. I haven't been able to figure out why though. = I suspect it's parsing the wrong httpd.conf file. If I hack = Apache::Test's need_module to always return 1, all tests pass, so these = modules are loaded. This seems to be a long-standing problem for some = (but not most) people, as evidenced by this thread from 2006: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00321.html > If the problems are not new then I'm inclined to leave them for now = (assuming I can get some +1s from voters on releasing this) and look at = addressing them for the next release. The purpose of this release was = really just to update Apache-Test in mod_perl to the current version = before making a long-overdue release of that. Do you have a link that shows the changes from 1.42 to 1.43-rc1? Or just = send me the diffs? That's probably a better way for me to evaluate the = changes. Thanks, Ed