Hello Philip

Thanks for your reply, which was very reassuring, actually.

By the way, my perl5.8.3 is built for i386-linux-thread-multi,
but my 5.8.8, which is what I built the mod_perl.so with,
is built for i686-linux. Two questions, then:
Is the non-threaded perl5.8.8 / mod_perl combination the
preferred one?
If I subsequently rebuild perl5.8.8 for i686-linux-thread-multi,
will I have to re-make the mod_perl ? (I presume the answer to
this is yes.)

Maurice Yarrow


Philip M. Gollucci wrote:

> Maurice Yarrow wrote:
>
>> t/apache/content_length_header.t 27 1 3.70% 17
>> t/api/status.t 6 2 33.33% 4-5

>
> These are fixed in SVN. You assume correctly. httpd
> backported/changed from functionality in 2.1.x to 2.0.56.. Just tests
> themselves needed to be updated -- no mod_perl source code.
> Install your mod_perl2 and have at fun.
>
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=411041&view=rev
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=411028&view=rev
> If it makes you feel better, you can apply those to your tree and
> see the tests pass with your 2.0.2. I would just ignore these 2 though.
>
> Not to worry, 2.0.3 is almost definitely less then 1 month away.
>
>> % t/TEST -verbose compat/apache_util.t modperl/pnotes.t

>
> Woops, you picked the wrong names.
> t/TEST -verbose apche/content_length_header.t api/status.t
>
>> All tests successful.
>> Files=2, Tests=23, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.68 cusr + 0.04 csys =
>> 0.72 CPU)
>> [warning] server localhost.localdomain:8529 shutdown

>
> Yup, your 2 tests didn't fail originally
>
>> Is the resulting mod_perl usable? Or is it to be considered
>> untrustworthy?

>
> No its stable and trustworthy.