On Tuesday 26 April 2011, Rainer Jung wrote:
+1 although there are still two problems on Solaris 10 for
test_reslist, but not a regression.
I built and made check on the following platforms:
- Solaris 8 + 10, Sparc
- SuSE Linux Enterprise 10 32 and 64 Bit
- RedHat Enterprise Linux 5, 64
On 15.04.2011 01:55, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs/zipballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. I
anticipate that we will release this, or its replacement if flawed, in
conjunction with the upcoming apr 1.4 release. Hopefully we will be
ready for TR of that soon :)
+/-1
[+1] Release
On 15.04.2011 03:51, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
In order to disambiguate what was released by external entities from what
the ASF APR Project has voted upon and released, I'd suggest that we best
serve our users by 'skipping' apr-util 1.4.x, and at minimum, 1.4.0.
Your opinions, please?
[ ]
On 04/15/2011 03:51 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
In order to disambiguate what was released by external entities from what
the ASF APR Project has voted upon and released, I'd suggest that we best
serve our users by 'skipping' apr-util 1.4.x, and at minimum, 1.4.0.
Your opinions, please?
+1
On Apr 14, 2011, at 7:55 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs/zipballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. I
anticipate that we will release this, or its replacement if flawed, in
conjunction with the upcoming apr 1.4 release. Hopefully we will be
ready for TR of that soon :)
+/-1
On Apr 14, 2011, at 9:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
In order to disambiguate what was released by external entities from what
the ASF APR Project has voted upon and released, I'd suggest that we best
serve our users by 'skipping' apr-util 1.4.x, and at minimum, 1.4.0.
Your opinions,
[X] Release apr-util 1.3.11 as GA
Unix source package tested with apr 1.4.x-latest on Windows XP+MinGW.
. Built-in expat
. MinGW libiconv
All tests passed.
2011-04-15 03:51:42 William A. Rowe Jr. napisał(a):
In order to disambiguate what was released by external entities from what
the ASF APR Project has voted upon and released, I'd suggest that we best
serve our users by 'skipping' apr-util 1.4.x, and at minimum, 1.4.0.
Your opinions, please?
On 4/14/2011 9:09 PM, Dongsheng Song wrote:
Use apr-utils 1.3 with apr 1.4, I felt very strange.
With apr 2.0, apr-util is folded into apr, so there will no longer
be two different version numbers (nor two packages).
[ +1 ] Release apr-util 1.3.11 as GA
Compiles and tests ok on Debian Linux unstable/x86
Am 15.04.2011 12:29, schrieb Jeff Trawick:
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Bojan Smojverbo...@rexursive.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 19:55 -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.10 as GA
I vote for that particular version without testing :-)
Qt
[ ] Release apr
On 4/19/2011 5:37 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
do we agree that is needed for MSVC in order to link tests statically?
--- test/makefile.win(revision 835655)
+++ test/makefile.win(working copy)
@@ -87,7 +87,9 @@
!IF $(MODEL) == static
PROGRAM_DEPENDENCIES = \
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tarballs/zipballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. I
anticipate that we will release this, or its replacement if flawed, in
conjunction with the upcoming apr 1.4 release. Hopefully we will be
ready for TR of that
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 19:55 -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.10 as GA
I vote for that particular version without testing :-)
Qt
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.11 as GA
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 9:51 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
In order to disambiguate what was released by external entities from what
the ASF APR Project has voted upon and released,
are you referring to some apr-util-1.4.0 RPM from opensuse.org, or
something else?
-Original Message-
From: William A. Rowe Jr. [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]
Sent: vrijdag 15 april 2011 3:52
To: APR Developer List
Subject: [vote] reset to apr-util 1.5.0-dev?
In order to disambiguate what was released by external entities from what
the ASF APR Project has voted
Tarballs/zipballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. I
anticipate that we will release this, or its replacement if flawed, in
conjunction with the upcoming apr 1.4 release. Hopefully we will be
ready for TR of that soon :)
+/-1
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.10 as GA
[X] Bump to apr-util 1.5.0 for the next pre-2.0 release
My 2¥
Am 15.04.2011 03:51, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
In order to disambiguate what was released by external entities from what
the ASF APR Project has voted upon and released, I'd suggest that we best
serve our users by 'skipping' apr-util 1.4.x, and at minimum, 1.4.0.
sorry, but can you please
[X] Bump to apr-util 1.5.0 for the next pre-2.0 release
Use apr-utils 1.3 with apr 1.4, I felt very strange.
I think it's reasonable to bump apr-util to 1.5, and used with apr 1.5.
vote, but instead
we will then use apr-1.4.x (where we have currently no reason to go
1.5.x) with apr-1.5.x == as strange as before, only then APU looks
advanced instead of behind :-)
Gün.
On Tuesday 12 October 2010, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[+1] Release apr-util 0.9.19 as GA
Tested on Debian unstable/x86 with builtin expat
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:33 PM, Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org wrote:
Am 13.10.2010 18:54, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
Am 13.10.2010 05:24, schrieb Jeff Trawick:
After 3+ days:
2 binding votes in favor (need at least one more)
3 non-binding votes in favor
no votes opposed
+1 for NetWare
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Mladen Turk mt...@apache.org wrote:
[+ 1] Release apr 0.9.19 as GA
Thanks...
After 6 days, we have 3 binding votes for release of apr 0.9.19 and
none opposed. There's still time for objections, as we don't have
apr-util 0.9.19 approved yet, and I'll move
Am 13.10.2010 18:54, schrieb Guenter Knauf:
Am 13.10.2010 05:24, schrieb Jeff Trawick:
After 3+ days:
2 binding votes in favor (need at least one more)
3 non-binding votes in favor
no votes opposed
+1 for NetWare as .18 already since non-configure build isnt affected by
expat whoes ... :-)
I
[+ 1] Release apr 0.9.19 as GA
Tested on linux and win32
Regards
--
^TM
[+1] Release apr-util 0.9.19 as GA
Tested on linux and win32
Regards
--
^TM
Am 13.10.2010 05:24, schrieb Jeff Trawick:
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Jeff Trawicktraw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tarballs/zips are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. As there are
enclosed security fixes (already available separately) and wrowe wants
to roll httpd 2.0 soon-ish to get those
On 09.10.2010 16:19, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs/zips are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. As there are
enclosed security fixes (already available separately) and wrowe wants
to roll httpd 2.0 soon-ish to get those delivered to the bulk of our
0.9.x users, it would be great to wrap this up
[+1 ] Release apr-util 0.9.19 as GA
(non-binding)
all tests pass on AIX 6.1 32-bit XLC w/o --with-expat=builtin and with
no system expat (0.9.18 fails first link of apr-util in make with this
configure line)
all tests pass on SLES11/PPC64
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tarballs/zips are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. As there are
enclosed security fixes (already available separately) and wrowe wants
to roll httpd 2.0 soon-ish to get those delivered to the bulk of our
0.9.x users, it
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
This latest level corrects a build problem on some platforms using the
bundled expat. Let's try to wrap up approval of this follow-up to
0.9.18 in 48 hours (httpd 2.0.next needs it for the enclosed security
fixes).
The
On 12.10.2010 05:43, Jeff Trawick wrote:
This latest level corrects a build problem on some platforms using the
bundled expat. Let's try to wrap up approval of this follow-up to
0.9.18 in 48 hours (httpd 2.0.next needs it for the enclosed security
fixes).
The only diffs since 0.9.18 are
*
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tarballs/zips are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. As there are
enclosed security fixes (already available separately) and wrowe wants
to roll httpd 2.0 soon-ish to get those delivered to the bulk of our
0.9.x users, it
On 11.10.2010 07:29, Sander Temme wrote:
On Oct 9, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs/zips are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. As there are
enclosed security fixes (already available separately) and wrowe wants
to roll httpd 2.0 soon-ish to get those delivered to the bulk of
Seems that our 0.9.18 build is looking in the wrong place. This is a
regression: -1.
Has anyone else tested with bundled Expat?
I had tested with explicit --with-expat=bundled, I am seeing when
there is no system expat (and configure discovers the bundled expat)
it has the extra /lib/
I had tested with explicit --with-expat=bundled,
s/bundled/builtin/ -- i didn't have the typo in my actual build
On 11.10.2010 15:59, Eric Covener wrote:
Seems that our 0.9.18 build is looking in the wrong place. This is a
regression: -1.
Has anyone else tested with bundled Expat?
I had tested with explicit --with-expat=bundled, I am seeing when
there is no system expat (and configure discovers the
It has in it: where? It is ncluded in the path APRUTIL_LDFLAGS, but those
are actually not really used (only for make check and even there it works
with the wrong path).
My make check fails with the implicit builtin expat, similar to
Sander's report (although his really was on link of aprutil
OK, big sorry: it breaks when doing the normal in-tree build, but not
when doing out of tree. I didn't expect the simpler case to break :(
Working on fixing.
Regards,
Rainer
On 11.10.2010 18:05, Rainer Jung wrote:
OK, big sorry: it breaks when doing the normal in-tree build, but not
when doing out of tree. I didn't expect the simpler case to break :(
... and it only seems to break on some platforms, like e.g. Darwin. On
Linux and Solaris it builds without
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Sander Temme san...@temme.net wrote:
[-1] Release apr-util 0.9.18 as GA
traveling this week, but grabbed necessary items for re-roll when I
saw this; will await a conclusion and re-TR
Any chance you can try the following patch to configure:
@@ -23541,7 +23541,7 @@
expat_include_dir=$top_builddir/$bundled_subdir/lib
expat_ldflags=-L$top_builddir/$bundled_subdir/lib
expat_libs=-lexpat
- expat_libtool=$top_builddir/$bundled_subdir/lib/libexpat.la
+
On 10/11/2010 12:14 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 11.10.2010 18:56, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Sander Temmesan...@temme.net wrote:
[-1] Release apr-util 0.9.18 as GA
traveling this week, but grabbed necessary items for re-roll when I
saw this; will await a conclusion
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 10/11/2010 12:14 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 11.10.2010 18:56, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Sander Temmesan...@temme.net wrote:
[-1] Release apr-util 0.9.18 as GA
traveling this week,
On Oct 11, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
Any chance you can try the following patch to configure:
Yes, that makes the issue go away. Configure, make, make install and make
check all work with that.
S.
@@ -23541,7 +23541,7 @@
expat_include_dir=$top_builddir/$bundled_subdir/lib
On 10/11/2010 12:28 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:25 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 10/11/2010 12:14 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
On 11.10.2010 18:56, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 1:29 AM, Sander Temmesan...@temme.net wrote:
[-1] Release
On 11.10.2010 19:29, Sander Temme wrote:
On Oct 11, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
Any chance you can try the following patch to configure:
Yes, that makes the issue go away. Configure, make, make install and make
check all work with that.
S.
@@ -23541,7 +23541,7 @@
So r1021428 should be fine. Anyone who can test apr-util 0.9.18 plus patch
on AIX before Jeff does a reoll?
+1
Went back to AIX and ran w/o --with-expat=builtin and got Sander's
make failure.
Overlayed apu-conf.m4 from 0.9.x HEAD and repeated build and it worked.
--
Eric Covener
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tarballs/zips are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. As there are
enclosed security fixes (already available separately) and wrowe wants
to roll httpd 2.0 soon-ish to get those delivered to the bulk of our
0.9.x users, it
This latest level corrects a build problem on some platforms using the
bundled expat. Let's try to wrap up approval of this follow-up to
0.9.18 in 48 hours (httpd 2.0.next needs it for the enclosed security
fixes).
The only diffs since 0.9.18 are
* Windows build files
* version
* corrected path
On 09.10.2010 16:19, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs/zips are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. As there are
enclosed security fixes (already available separately) and wrowe wants
to roll httpd 2.0 soon-ish to get those delivered to the bulk of our
0.9.x users, it would be great to wrap this up
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
On 09.10.2010 16:19, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs/zips are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. As there are
enclosed security fixes (already available separately) and wrowe wants
to roll httpd 2.0 soon-ish to get
On Oct 9, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs/zips are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. As there are
enclosed security fixes (already available separately) and wrowe wants
to roll httpd 2.0 soon-ish to get those delivered to the bulk of our
0.9.x users, it would be great to
Tarballs/zips are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. As there are
enclosed security fixes (already available separately) and wrowe wants
to roll httpd 2.0 soon-ish to get those delivered to the bulk of our
0.9.x users, it would be great to wrap this up within 48 hours.
(Comments on timing
+/-1
[+1] Release apr 0.9.19 as GA
[+1] Release apr-util 0.9.18 as GA
We'll have cycles to let this go the full 72 hours, I expect to leave the
httpd votes open that long. Although there will be a .19/.18 based tag
of httpd today, I intend to withdraw and reroll 2.0 with fresh 0.9 tags
+/-1
[+1] Release apr 0.9.19 as GA
[+1] Release apr-util 0.9.18 as GA
(non-binding)
AIX 6.1/ xlc / 32,64 no regression (DSO failures only)
HP 11.23/ aCC / IA64 / no regression (DSO failures only)
HP 11.23 / aCC / PARISC / all tests pass
Ubuntu 10.04 / gcc / IA32 all tests pass
SLES11 /
decide.
The question is whether the latest apr-1.x-compatible apr-util is
apr-util trunk or apr-util 1.5.x (today; could be apr-util 1.6.x next
month).
It's no huge deal to me, but I vote for the latest apr-1.x-compatible
apr-util is apr-util trunk.
On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
These choices seem skewed to me. apr is apr-util/trunk is a
different concept than rename 1.5.x to trunk. Conceptually, apr is
apr-util trunk whatever we decide.
I disagree, in the past, we had two projects, each with an independent
trunk
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
These choices seem skewed to me. apr is apr-util/trunk is a
different concept than rename 1.5.x to trunk. Conceptually, apr is
apr-util trunk whatever we decide.
I
2010/10/7 Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm:
On 07 Oct 2010, at 12:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
These choices seem skewed to me. apr is apr-util/trunk is a
different concept than rename 1.5.x to trunk. Conceptually, apr is
apr-util trunk whatever we decide.
I disagree, in the past, we had two
On 10/7/2010 5:29 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
We will still need to make releases on apr-util in the v1.x series, and we
may need to
bump v1.3 to v1.4, etc. For this, we need a properly functional trunk,
otherwise those
following the standard svn conventions face problems.
Yes, and no.
apr-util/trunk with guidance
wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
If we have you miscategorized, please revote. Otherwise let's just leave
this vote/discussion open till the end of the week for others to chime in?
On Oct 6, 2010, at 12:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to trunk
jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
[+1] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier, sctemme
S.
--
san...@temme.net
Am 06.10.2010 21:26, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
On 10/5/2010 2:40 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
Any objection to renaming the apr-util 1.5.x branch to trunk? It is
the trunk for that tree now.
Counting up the opinions posted on the list...
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to trunk
jorton, rjung, minfrin,
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:26 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to trunk
jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
[ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
Here is a stupid idea: why don't we have both? We can
On 07 Oct 2010, at 1:13 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 14:26 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
[ ] Rename 1.5.x to trunk
jorton, rjung, minfrin, trawick, jim
[ ] apr/ is 'apr-util/ trunk', stub apr-util/trunk with guidance
wrowe, niq, henryjen, poirier
Here is a
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 6:54 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 10/1/2010 8:22 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. Windows packages are
not yet available.
Due to the inclusion of a fix for a potential DOS that could affect
some library
On 10/1/2010 10:47 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
would be nice if we could get an APR 1.4.x release too for next httpd
releases.
Adapting to this set of changes for apu-0.9.x is far more important than dealing
with apr. A release would be nice, but is certainly not urgent.
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 3:52 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
On 10/1/2010 10:47 PM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
would be nice if we could get an APR 1.4.x release too for next httpd
releases.
Adapting to this set of changes for apu-0.9.x is far more important than
dealing
with
On 01.10.2010 15:22, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. Windows packages are
not yet available.
Due to the inclusion of a fix for a potential DOS that could affect
some library consumers, I hope to get enough feedback within 24 hours
to release.
+/-1
[+1]
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. Windows packages are
not yet available.
Due to the inclusion of a fix for a potential DOS that could affect
some library consumers, I hope to get enough feedback within 24 hours
to release.
+/-1
[+1]
On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:22:29 -0400
Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tarballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. Windows packages are
not yet available.
Due to the inclusion of a fix for a potential DOS that could affect
some library consumers, I hope to get enough feedback within
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
All builds suceeded, all make check ran fine, except for two cases on
Solaris 10 (Niagara). I reran the tests there and couldn't reproduce the
problem. Tests now running in a loop, so far not reproducible.
...
Details
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tarballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. Windows packages are
not yet available.
Windows files just now added...
On 02.10.2010 22:29, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Rainer Jungrainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
All builds suceeded, all make check ran fine, except for two cases on
Solaris 10 (Niagara). I reran the tests there and couldn't reproduce the
problem. Tests now running in a
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
Tarballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. Windows packages are
not yet available.
Due to the inclusion of a fix for a potential DOS that could affect
some library consumers, I hope to get enough feedback within 24
On 01 Oct 2010, at 3:22 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. Windows packages are
not yet available.
Due to the inclusion of a fix for a potential DOS that could affect
some library consumers, I hope to get enough feedback within 24 hours
to release.
+/-1
On 10/1/2010 8:22 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
Tarballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. Windows packages are
not yet available.
Due to the inclusion of a fix for a potential DOS that could affect
some library consumers, I hope to get enough feedback within 24 hours
to release.
+/-1
Tarballs are at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/. Windows packages are
not yet available.
Due to the inclusion of a fix for a potential DOS that could affect
some library consumers, I hope to get enough feedback within 24 hours
to release.
+/-1
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.10 as GA
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 09:22:29AM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
+/-1
[+1] Release apr-util 1.3.10 as GA
* signature is fine
* CHANGES is good
* builds, make check pass Fedora/x86_64
* installs, can build 2.2.x against w/apr-1.5.x
- config.guess/sub seem to have been replaced by 2006 variants
Am 01.10.2010 15:22, schrieb Jeff Trawick:
Due to the inclusion of a fix for a potential DOS that could affect
some library consumers, I hope to get enough feedback within 24 hours
to release.
+/-1
[+1] Release apr-util 1.3.10 as GA
with either patched APR 1.4.2 or yet unreleased APR 1.4.x
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
On 05/30/2010 06:51 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I propose Dan Poirier for commit access to APR: First post on d...@apr in
Jan 2009, has contributed patches, documentation, helped on list.
minfrin: +1
Regards,
Graham
--
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
On 05/30/2010 06:52 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I propose Philip M. Gollucci for commit access to APR: First post on
d...@apr in April 2005, has contributed patches, maintains the freebsd
port, helped on list.
minfrin: +1
Regards,
Graham
--
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
On 05/30/2010 06:52 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I propose Stefan Fritsch for commit access to APR: First post on d...@apr
in August 2008, has tested releases, helped others on list, submitted
patches.
minfrin: +1
Regards,
Graham
--
+1
Regards
Rüdiger
On 05/30/2010 06:52 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Hi all,
I propose Rainer Jung for commit access to APR: First post on d...@apr in
July of 2008, has contributed patches, tested releases.
minfrin: +1
Regards,
Graham
--
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Going over the blockers to 2.0, here seem to be our choices since nobody
appears
to have the time or interest in ensuring apr_ldap becomes fully modular;
[X] Abandon apr_ldap_* API's to httpd 2.3 ldap,
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 10:56:04AM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
Going over the blockers to 2.0, here seem to be our choices since nobody
appears
to have the time or interest in ensuring apr_ldap becomes fully modular;
[X] Abandon apr_ldap_* API's to httpd 2.3 ldap, including required
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:56 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Going over the blockers to 2.0, here seem to be our choices since nobody
appears
to have the time or interest in ensuring apr_ldap becomes fully modular;
[X] Abandon apr_ldap_* API's to httpd 2.3 ldap, including
Going over the blockers to 2.0, here seem to be our choices since nobody appears
to have the time or interest in ensuring apr_ldap becomes fully modular;
[ ] Abandon apr_ldap_* API's to httpd 2.3 ldap, including required autoconf
[ ] Keep apr_ldap_* within apr project, as an independent
[ ] Keep apr_ldap_* within apr project, as an independent library
As first-to-vote, I'm willing to do the legwork of moving this autoconf glue
across
into httpd's ./configure.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 20:47 -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[+1] Release apr-1.3.12
That's the third binding vote. Barring any other odd reports in the
next 6 or so hours, I'll update the release directory around
On 2/11/2010 6:10 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 20:47 -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[+1] Release apr-1.3.12
That's the third binding vote. Barring any other odd reports in the
next 6 or so hours, I'll
binding vote. Barring any other odd reports in the
next 6 or so hours, I'll update the release directory around then.
Whoops +1 here; will add win32 source and binaries done this afternoon.
Thanks
Can I suggest we send out the 1.4.2 email with the security notice, and
in _that_
:47 -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[+1] Release apr-1.3.12
That's the third binding vote. Barring any other odd reports in the
next 6 or so hours, I'll update the release directory around then.
Whoops +1 here; will add win32 source and binaries done this afternoon.
Thanks
Can I suggest we
I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but when running `make
check` against the 1.3.12 dist on Solaris x86, the test hangs in testpoll.
Attaching a debugger reveals the following backtrace:
#0 0xfedc9a45 in _portfs () from /lib/libc.so.1
#1 0xfed55c29 in port_getn () from
(oops, sent to Gregory directly)
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Trawick traw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Gregory Szorc gregory.sz...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but when running `make
check` against the 1.3.12 dist on
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 20:47 -0500, Jeff Trawick wrote:
[+1] Release apr-1.3.12
Signatures look good. Checksums looks good.
All tests pass on Fedora 12, i686.
--
Bojan
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Gregory Szorc gregory.sz...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the best place to post this, but when running `make
check` against the 1.3.12 dist on Solaris x86, the test hangs in testpoll.
Attaching a debugger reveals the following backtrace:
#0
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Gregory Szorc gregory.sz...@gmail.com wrote:
what does pstack PID display when it is hung?
3305: ./testall testpoll
fedc9a45 portfs (6, 37, 8110b98, 32, 32, 0)
fef898a6 apr_pollcb_poll (8110b88, , , 806626d, 8047b04,
8047b3c) + 82
501 - 600 of 1267 matches
Mail list logo
