William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
[x] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
(revert r799085 for now, reapply upon 2.0.0 release,
or rm ldap/ if not completed)
I think it would be useful for developers (specially also for external
developers as consumers of APR) to have a
On 08/05/2009 02:41 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:07 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[+1] Release apr 1.3.8 as GA
[+1] Release apr-util 1.3.9 as GA
Good signatures. Good checksums.
Ditto +1 on both.
All tests pass on RHEL4 x86_64 and Solaris 9 and Solaris 10.
Please vote for your choice.
[ ] apr 2.0 should support an incomplete ldap interface
(revert r799085 for good)
[ ] apr 2.0 should support a complete ldap interface
(revert r799085 for now, reapply if ever completed)
[ ] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[X] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
(revert r799085 for now, reapply upon 2.0.0 release,
or rm ldap/ if not completed)
There is no point making it more difficult for the LDAP people to get
this work done.
If we are ready for a v2.0.0
[X] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
(do not revert r799085! rm ldap/ if not completed)
I meant for this to go to both... Sorry for cluttering up your inbox Mr. Rowe,
sir. :)
Original Message
Subject: Re: [VOTE] apr_ldap 2.0 support (was r799085)
Date: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 11:41:28 -0400
From: Paul J. Reder rede...@remulak.net
To: William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
+/-1
[+1] Release apr 1.3.8 as GA
[+1] Release apr-util 1.3.9 as GA
Validated Win32. We have enough reports and all reports are good.
Unless someone hollers within 4 hours, this will release today.
Bill
[+1 ] apr 2.0 must support a complete ldap interface
(revert r799085 for now, reapply upon 2.0.0 release,
or rm ldap/ if not completed)
Regards
Rüdiger
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr.wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
+/-1
[+1] Release apr 1.3.8 as GA
[+1] Release apr-util 1.3.9 as GA
non-binding +1 on AIX w/ xlc and HP/PARISC (no regressions)
--
Eric Covener
cove...@gmail.com
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Candidates in the usual location, already synced. Will let this vote
initially run for 24 hours and would hope to find enough feedback to
release by then, given the security implications.
Based on seven reports, at least three of them committers, both
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Candidates in the usual location, already synced. Will let this vote
initially run for 24 hours and would hope to find enough feedback to
release by then, given the security implications.
Based on seven reports, at least three of them
this vote
initially run for 24 hours and would hope to find enough feedback to
release by then, given the security implications.
+/-1
[ ] Release apr 1.3.8 as GA
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.9 as GA
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Candidates in the usual location, already synced. Will let this vote
initially run for 24 hours and would hope to find enough feedback to
release by then, given the security implications.
+/-1
[ X ] Release apr 1.3.8 as GA
[ X ] Release apr-util 1.3.9
Builds and tests okay on Mac OS X 10.5.7.
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 17:07 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[+1] Release apr 1.3.8 as GA
[+1] Release apr-util 1.3.9 as GA
Good signatures. Good checksums.
All tests pass on Fedora 11, i686 and RHEL4, i686.
Apache 2.2.12 and libapreq2 2.12 appear to work with it.
--
Bojan
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
+/-1
[ ] Release apr 1.3.8 as GA
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.9 as GA
+1 (non binding) FreeBSD amd64 6/7/8 (build time)
FreeBSD amd64 8 (runtime)
On Jul 20, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Release candidate tarballs in usual location (http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
)
[not for distribution]. Vote starts as we speak and will run for
48 hours.
Plenty o' +1s (binding and non-).
I am moving the files to the official dist
Nick Critical question here: is this a regression, or does 1.3.6 show
Nick the same?
Yes, I see the same problem on 1.3.6.
Bojan See if this works for you.
Bojan's patch definitely improves the situation. testoc and testflock
now run cleanly. On make check I now see:
--8---
testoc
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 05:15 -0500, Rhys Ulerich wrote:
Yes, I see the same problem on 1.3.6.
BTW, this is a problem related to code of the actual tests, not APR
itself. So, no big deal.
--
Bojan
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 05:21:32PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Release candidate tarballs in usual location
(http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/)
[not for distribution]. Vote starts as we speak and will run for
48 hours.
+1, thanks for RMing.
Tests and general sanity check pass on Fedora 11
On Jul 20, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Release candidate tarballs in usual location (http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
)
[not for distribution]. Vote starts as we speak and will run for
48 hours.
+1 Solaris 10
Ubuntu 8.10
CentOS 4
OS X 10.5.7
On Jul 20, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Release candidate tarballs in usual location (http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
)
[not for distribution]. Vote starts as we speak and will run for
48 hours.
I'm going to give it another ~24hrs to allow more people to
chime in :)
Jim Jagielski schrieb:
Release candidate tarballs in usual location
(http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/)
[not for distribution]. Vote starts as we speak and will run for
48 hours.
+1
NetWare no regressions
OpenSuSE 11.1 X86_64 all tests passed
Günter.
On 07/20/2009 11:21 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Release candidate tarballs in usual location
(http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/)
[not for distribution]. Vote starts as we speak and will run for
48 hours.
+1 for release.
Tested on
Solaris 8 - 10
RHEL4 5 32 / 64 Bit
SuSE 10.2 32 Bit
All
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
+1 for release.
Tested on
Solaris 8 - 10
RHEL4 5 32 / 64 Bit
SuSE 10.2 32 Bit
All tests pass.
+1.
RHEL5 x86_64
MacOSX 10.5.7
Fedora Core 8
All tests pass.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
All tests pass on Ubuntu 8.04 / 64-bit with gcc 4.3.1.
On the same Ubuntu 8.04 / 64-bit system with Intel 10.1 compilers I
see this from make check:
testflock : \tryread: error while loading shared libraries:
libimf.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 16:34 -0500, Rhys Ulerich wrote:
On the same Ubuntu 8.04 / 64-bit system with Intel 10.1 compilers I
see this from make check:
testflock : \tryread: error while loading shared libraries:
libimf.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 17:21 -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Release candidate tarballs in usual location
(http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
)
[not for distribution]. Vote starts as we speak and will run for
48 hours.
+1
Good signatures, good MD5s.
All tests pass on Fedora 11 (i686) and RHEL4
Not sure what to make of these. ldd shows that all executables in
test/ can find the dynamic libraries, including libimf.so, correctly.
When you say that ldd is fine with the whole thing - do you have
LD_LIBRARY_PATH set at all somewhere or not? BTW, where is your
libimf.so?
LD_LIBRARY_PATH
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 00:27 -0500, Rhys Ulerich wrote:
LD_LIBRARY_PATH is set in my environment. libimf.so is in a
nonstandard directory present in LD_LIBRARY_PATH. ldd finds libimf.so
because it is in my LD_LIBRARY_PATH. I'm aftraid I can't give more
solid answers than these-- due to some
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 15:46 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Maybe we need to add APR_PROGRAM_ENV to procattr there?
See if this works for you.
--
Bojan
Index: test/testflock.c
===
--- test/testflock.c (revision 796615)
+++
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Release candidate tarballs in usual location
(http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/)
[not for distribution]. Vote starts as we speak and will run for
48 hours.
OpenSolaris/x86: configure gets me gcc in preference to Sun CC
which is the system default. All tests pass.
If I
Nick Kew wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Release candidate tarballs in usual location
(http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/)
[not for distribution]. Vote starts as we speak and will run for
48 hours.
OpenSolaris/x86: configure gets me gcc in preference to Sun CC
which is the system default. All
2009/7/20 William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.net:
Nick Kew wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Release candidate tarballs in usual location
(http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/)
[not for distribution]. Vote starts as we speak and will run for
48 hours.
OpenSolaris/x86: configure gets me gcc
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So all is basically well, but it would be good to compile
by default with the same compiler as `which cc` on the
host system!
Agreed, but this is a regression?
No.
Just something that didn't affect me when my platforms
were Linux/BSD/Mac, and that I've hitherto
Nick Kew wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So all is basically well, but it would be good to compile
by default with the same compiler as `which cc` on the
host system!
Agreed, but this is a regression?
No.
Just something that didn't affect me when my platforms
were Linux/BSD/Mac,
+1 for both.
On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:33 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Subject says it all, unix tarballs at the usual location,
http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ (not for distribution), and
votes start now for 48 hours or until we register sufficient
+1's for release.
My vote and win32-src.zip
sufficient
+1's for release.
My vote and win32-src.zip files arriving tomorrow.
+1 for both. All tests pass. Checksums and signatures are ok.
Tested on
Solaris 8
Solaris 9
Solaris 10
Which iconv did you use, or did testxlate fail, or which S10 update do you
have?
iconv_open(8859
start now for 48 hours or until we register sufficient
+1's for release.
My vote and win32-src.zip files arriving tomorrow.
+1 for both. All tests pass. Checksums and signatures are ok.
Tested on
Solaris 8
Solaris 9
Solaris 10
Which iconv did you use, or did testxlate fail
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 2:33 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wr...@rowe-clan.netwrote:
Subject says it all, unix tarballs at the usual location,
http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ (not for distribution), and
votes start now for 48 hours or until we register sufficient
+1's for release.
My vote
On 02.07.2009 08:33, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Subject says it all, unix tarballs at the usual location,
http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ (not for distribution), and
votes start now for 48 hours or until we register sufficient
+1's for release.
My vote and win32-src.zip files arriving
Subject says it all, unix tarballs at the usual location,
http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/ (not for distribution), and
votes start now for 48 hours or until we register sufficient
+1's for release.
My vote and win32-src.zip files arriving tomorrow.
[+1]: apr-1.3.6
[+1]: apr-util-1.3.8
Good signatures, good checksums. All tests pass on Fedora 11 i686. A
brief Apache 2.2.11 test worked too.
PS. Just a reminder that folks running stuff like CGI, PHP, Perl etc.
under Apache (or anything that may call execve()) should verify that all
of their
://www.nabble.com/-vote--release-apr-1.3.4%2C-apr-util-1.3.5-tp23775995p24162578.html
Sent from the APR Dev (Apache Portable Runtime) mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
Hi Günther,
Makulik schrieb:
Guenter Knauf-2 wrote:
Unfortunately cross-mingw32 on Linux is broken either for another
reason: configure wants to check somewhere for /dev/zero:
I came over the same issue when I tried to cross compile APR for
a powerpc system. The real problem is, that
Hi,
Guenter Knauf schrieb:
I'm neither a configure guru; but when we do cross-builds of libcurl we
use --with-random=notused to pass this check, so I guess we have there a
hack in the configure script ...
wrong track - I had in mind it was /dev/random, but its /dev/zero which
breaks ...
so
Hello,
Just a note for Windows
billion-laughs.xml does flag as an XML Bomb on my AV
so you may not want to include it in future win32 distributions
Regards,
Gregg
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The previous [vote] for apr 1.3.4, -util 1.3.5 is recalled and those
candidates are not-released
On 06/03/2009 06:19 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The previous [vote] for apr 1.3.4, -util 1.3.5 is recalled and those
candidates are not-released.
New candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Letting this vote run only 24 hours from now. The release
On 06/04/2009 02:09 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 11:25 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[+1] Release apr 0.9.18 as GA
[+1] Release apr-util 0.9.17 as GA
Good signatures. Good checksums.
Tested on Fedora 11, i686.
The only thing that fails is this (APR):
On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:19 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The previous [vote] for apr 1.3.4, -util 1.3.5 is recalled and those
candidates are not-released.
New candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Letting this vote run only 24 hours from now. The release
On Jun 3, 2009, at 12:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Will let this vote initially run for 24 hours and would hope to find
enough feedback to release by then, given the security implications
of apr-util 0.9.17, especially
The previous [vote] for apr 1.3.4, -util 1.3.5 is recalled and those
candidates are not-released.
New candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Letting this vote run only 24 hours from now. The release will be
announced 36 hours from now after mirrors catch up a bit
Candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Will let this vote initially run for 24 hours and would hope to find
enough feedback to release by then, given the security implications
of apr-util 0.9.17, especially, and the advantages of providing one
single announcement
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 11:19 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[+1] Release apr 1.3.5 as GA
[+1] Release apr-util 1.3.7 as GA
Good signatures. Good checksums.
Tested on Fedora 11, i686.
--
Bojan
On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 11:25 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[+1] Release apr 0.9.18 as GA
[+1] Release apr-util 0.9.17 as GA
Good signatures. Good checksums.
Tested on Fedora 11, i686.
The only thing that fails is this (APR):
-
starting consumer.
Name-based
On Jun 3, 2009, at 9:19 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
The previous [vote] for apr 1.3.4, -util 1.3.5 is recalled and those
candidates are not-released.
New candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Letting this vote run only 24 hours from now. The release
On Jun 3, 2009, at 9:25 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Will let this vote initially run for 24 hours and would hope to find
enough feedback to release by then, given the security implications
of apr-util 0.9.17, especially
svn mv apr/apr-util/trunk apr/apr-util/trunk-eol
or
svn rm apr/apr-util/trunk
? Mostly curious about what else people might want to harvest
from a trunk-eol before it's rm'ed.
On Jun 2, 2009, at 2:27 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
svn mv apr/apr-util/trunk apr/apr-util/trunk-eol
or
svn rm apr/apr-util/trunk
+1
? Mostly curious about what else people might want to harvest
from a trunk-eol before it's rm'ed.
Aren't all the relevant bits in apr trunk now?
S.
Sander Temme san...@temme.net said:
On May 31, 2009, at 3:31 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 23:55 -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
#0 0x000103a7 in send0_pollset (tc=0xb508, data=0x0) at
testpoll.c:389
If you stop there and have a look at the vars, anything that GDB
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
+/-1
[ ] Release apr 1.3.4 as GA
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.5 as GA
Folks, your opinions please.
MingW32 / MSYS configure build is still broken ...
Günter.
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
[+1] Release apr 1.3.4 as GA
[+1] Release apr-util 1.3.5 as GA
builds for, and works with NetWare.
Günter.
:56:34 +0200
Subject : Re: [vote] release apr 1.3.4, apr-util 1.3.5
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
+/-1
[ ] Release apr 1.3.4 as GA
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.5 as GA
Folks, your opinions please.
MingW32 / MSYS configure build is still broken ...
Günter.
On 29.05.2009 10:08, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
+/-1
[ ] Release apr 1.3.4 as GA
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.5 as GA
Folks, your opinions please.
+1 (non-binding) on Solaris 8 and Windows XP for both
Also seeing Ruediger's observation concerning the empty shell loop in
test Makefile
Guenter Knauf wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
+/-1
[ ] Release apr 1.3.4 as GA
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.5 as GA
Folks, your opinions please.
MingW32 / MSYS configure build is still broken ...
As Mladen broke this versions ago, I see no point in holding up any
release for this
carlo.bramix wrote:
Unfortunately, you are right: these sources do not work under Mingw and Msys
(sigh...)
From : Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org
MingW32 / MSYS configure build is still broken ...
Günter.
Posts like this get you no where; post the errors and your own diagnostics
of
MingW32 / MSYS configure build is still broken ...
after fixing Mladen's commit which mingw folks failed to point out to him
the compiler error of...
$ testall.exe -v testdso testshm
testdso : |Line 61: The specified module could not be found.
|Line 77: The specified module could
Rainer Jung wrote:
Also seeing Ruediger's observation concerning the empty shell loop in
test Makefile for apr-util on Solaris; r780412 fixes it.
Yup, that's going to be picked up. Very nice.
On Windows testpass fails, because there's no crypt but the test still
tries to validate the Unix
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
carlo.bramix wrote:
Unfortunately, you are right: these sources do not work under Mingw and Msys
(sigh...)
From : Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org
MingW32 / MSYS configure build is still broken ...
Günter.
Posts like this get you no where; post the
Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
carlo.bramix wrote:
Unfortunately, you are right: these sources do not work under Mingw and
Msys (sigh...)
From : Guenter Knauf fua...@apache.org
MingW32 / MSYS configure build is still broken ...
Günter.
Posts like this get
On May 30, 2009, at 10:20 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 21:39 -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
testpoll: |/bin/sh: line 1: 1831 Bus
error ./$prog
Programs failed: testall
make[1]: *** [check] Error 138
make: *** [check] Error 2
What does gdb tell you?
On Saturday 30 May 2009, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Friday 29 May 2009, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.5 as GA
apr-util's make check fails in testdbm because test/Makefile.in
misses ../dbm/.libs when setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Patches
On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 23:55 -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
#0 0x000103a7 in send0_pollset (tc=0xb508, data=0x0) at
testpoll.c:389
If you stop there and have a look at the vars, anything that GDB doesn't
like? Wrong alignment and such?
--
Bojan
On 05/31/2009 01:15 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
FYI - As soon as I see one more committer ack the 1.3 release, I will
move ahead with tagging an 0.9; I just figured it wasn't worth doing
if things were out of sorts.
If anyone wants to address any 'make check' flaw there, first, that
On 05/31/2009 11:07 AM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Saturday 30 May 2009, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Friday 29 May 2009, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.5 as GA
apr-util's make check fails in testdbm because test/Makefile.in
misses
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Sander Temme san...@temme.net wrote:
On May 29, 2009, at 1:08 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Letting this vote run through midnight Monday morning, my time,
so depending on my weekend I'll
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 03:08 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[+1] Release apr 1.3.4 as GA
[-1] Release apr-util 1.3.5 as GA
--
$ ./testall -v testdbm
testdbm : |Line 175: expected 0, but saw 20019
FAILED 1 of 2
Failed TestsTotal FailFailed
On May 31, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Fri, 2009-05-29 at 03:08 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[+1] Release apr 1.3.4 as GA
[-1] Release apr-util 1.3.5 as GA
--
$ ./testall -v testdbm
testdbm : |Line 175: expected 0, but saw 20019
FAILED
On May 31, 2009, at 3:31 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 23:55 -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
#0 0x000103a7 in send0_pollset (tc=0xb508, data=0x0) at
testpoll.c:389
If you stop there and have a look at the vars, anything that GDB
doesn't
like? Wrong alignment and such?
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 05/31/2009 01:15 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
FYI - As soon as I see one more committer ack the 1.3 release, I will
move ahead with tagging an 0.9; I just figured it wasn't worth doing
if things were out of sorts.
If anyone wants to address any 'make check' flaw
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 09:15 -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
Looks like descs has not been filled in:
(gdb) p descs
$8 = (const apr_pollfd_t *) 0x0
Should that be NULL after the poll?
Maybe you need to step into apr_pollset_poll() on line 384, to see what
happens to descs there. Looks like
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 05:21 -0700, Jeff Trawick wrote:
FWIW, make check has been causing a system panic for me on at least
10.5.5-10.5.7. As Paul mentioned earlier (somewhere), this is
triggered by our kqueue() use (which has no issues AFAICT on FreeBSD).
I don't recall other people reporting
On May 31, 2009 5:11pm, Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com wrote:
On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 05:21 -0700, Jeff Trawick wrote:
FWIW, make check has been causing a system panic for me on at least
10.5.5-10.5.7. As Paul mentioned earlier (somewhere), this is
triggered by our kqueue() use
On 29.05.2009 10:08, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Letting this vote run through midnight Monday morning, my time,
so depending on my weekend I'll either stage-to-mirrors late that
night, or first thing Monday a.m
On Friday 29 May 2009, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[ ] Release apr-util 1.3.5 as GA
apr-util's make check fails in testdbm because test/Makefile.in
misses ../dbm/.libs when setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Minor glitch on all Solaris variants for apr-util: If not dbd driver was
complied make check fails because the Solaris flavour of bash is picky
regarding
an for loop with an empty list (for i in ; do). The ones on RHEL don't seem to
care. But IMHO nothing that
FYI - As soon as I see one more committer ack the 1.3 release, I will
move ahead with tagging an 0.9; I just figured it wasn't worth doing
if things were out of sorts.
If anyone wants to address any 'make check' flaw there, first, that
would be terrific. I doubt we'll see another 0.9 release
On May 29, 2009, at 1:08 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Letting this vote run through midnight Monday morning, my time,
so depending on my weekend I'll either stage-to-mirrors late that
night, or first thing Monday a.m
On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 21:39 -0700, Sander Temme wrote:
testpoll: |/bin/sh: line 1: 1831 Bus
error ./$prog
Programs failed: testall
make[1]: *** [check] Error 138
make: *** [check] Error 2
What does gdb tell you?
--
Bojan
Candidates in the usual location, may take up to an hour to sync.
Letting this vote run through midnight Monday morning, my time,
so depending on my weekend I'll either stage-to-mirrors late that
night, or first thing Monday a.m. for announcement about 12 hrs
later after some mirrors have caught
So, during the conversations we've had here in Amsterdam regarding
combining APR and APR-util (see post from Paul), one of the big
stumbling blocks has been our treatment of the LDAP interfaces via
APR-util.
The crux of the issue is that it is a 'leaky' abstraction - in that,
APR-util does not
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
jus...@erenkrantz.com wrote:
Therefore, the consensus of the folks here is that we should pursue
one of the following courses of action:
[ ] Fix the LDAP interface to be a complete/full LDAP abstraction
[X] Remove the LDAP interfaces from
here is that we should pursue
one of the following courses of action:
[ ] Fix the LDAP interface to be a complete/full LDAP abstraction
[ ] Remove the LDAP interfaces from APR
This vote is completely premature.
What was supposed to happen is that a discussion be kicked off **on the
mailing list
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Development of APR doesn't happen via conversations in Amsterdam.
Of course not, that's why I posted.
The clear consensus here in the room is that the current approach to
LDAP is broken and ill thought-out (for the reasons
Jeff Trawick wrote:
any counter-knowledge/opinions on the following?
assert(only httpd uses apr LDAP)
Can you cite references to show this is so? I would be very hard pressed
to assert that functionality that has been available in APR for many
years would have just one single user.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Of course not, that's why I posted.
The clear consensus here in the room is that the current approach to
LDAP is broken and ill thought-out (for the reasons I illuminated),
but what there isn't consensus on is how to proceed. Hence, the
discussion on-list about how to
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Of course not, that's why I posted.
The clear consensus here in the room is that the current approach to
LDAP is broken and ill thought-out (for the reasons I illuminated),
but what there isn't
On 24.03.2009 12:33, Graham Leggett wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
any counter-knowledge/opinions on the following?
assert(only httpd uses apr LDAP)
Can you cite references to show this is so? I would be very hard pressed
to assert that functionality that has been available in APR for many
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote:
Jeff Trawick wrote:
any counter-knowledge/opinions on the following?
assert(only httpd uses apr LDAP)
Can you cite references to show this is so? I would be very hard pressed to
assert that functionality that has
Jeff Trawick wrote:
I feel like voting for Fix the LDAP interface... but I don't see
anybody caring but httpd, and the widespread use of Linux/OpenLDAP for
developing the apps in our space has made this an unstrategic problem to
solve.
I agree, it seems apr_ldap can be entirely in
701 - 800 of 1267 matches
Mail list logo
