On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Phil Pennock <pdp@???> wrote: > On 2012-03-30 at 06:51 -0700, Todd Lyons wrote:
>> But then I get slight errors on each test. This is typical output:
>>
>> 220 the.local.host.name ESMTP Exim 4.77_1102-226c389 Tue, 2 Mar 1999
>> 09:44:33 +0000
>> ----------
>> 220 the.local.host.name ESMTP Exim x.yz Tue, 2 Mar 1999 09:44:33 +0000
>
> So the version number should have been changed in the tested binary by
> patchexim.
>
> Looks as though the last changes were by me in October when I found that
> the new version numbers generated by the build system were not handled
> by the test suite, so I fixed the tests to run as part of the release
> process.
>
> Further, it looks like I missed some other output formats.
> runtest normalises output. Looks like the regexp isn't matching that
> version string. The underscore is the problem.
>
> I've fixed patchexim to handle this variant too.
Are there more places with underscores that need to be touched? It
still fails on what looks like what should be something replaced:
Basic/0001 Basic configuration setting
===============f test-stdout-munged with stdout/0001 failed >From line 22 of "test-stdout-munged" and line 22 of "stdout/0001" the files are different.
----------
warn_message_file = CALLER_HOME/test/warnmsg_file
----------
warn_message_file = /home/exim/test/warnmsg_file
===============
1 difference found.
"test-stdout-munged" contains 22 lines; "stdout/0001" contains 22 lines.
Thanks for the answers Phil. :-)
...Todd
--
Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be a
violent psychopath who knows where you live. -- Martin Golding
