On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:38:07 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/14/2012 01:17 AM, Father Chrysostomos via RT wrote: > > > Is there any chance you could include tests cases, too? > > Ah yes, good call. This prompted me to find a bug in my patch as well > (i was calling getsockname() instead of sockname() on the IO::Socket > object, i have no idea how i missed that the first time through). > > A revised patch is attached.
I've just applied and tested this revised patch and can confirm that resolves the error(s) that I was seeing with this issue. micah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
