are all
assumptions and happy circumstance. Reasonable people can disagree with
our assertions, so let's vote...
removing -lldap -llber from ./configure --with-ldap builds into a seperate
recoverable ./apu-1-config --ldap-libs flag;
[ ] Breaks our versioning contract
[ ] Does not break our
removing -lldap -llber from ./configure --with-ldap builds into a seperate
recoverable ./apu-1-config --ldap-libs flag;
[ ] Breaks our versioning contract
[X] Does not break our versioning contract
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
removing -lldap -llber from ./configure --with-ldap builds into a seperate
recoverable ./apu-1-config --ldap-libs flag;
[ ] Breaks our versioning contract
[X] Does not break our versioning contract
The acid test is whether an APR consuming application binary (eg
I'll leave this on trunk/ until tomorrow evening, at which point I
plan to boot the flag and related changes if this doesn't gain 3 +1's
who are interested in the feature. So if you have an opinion, express
it already.
Bill
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please cast your votes if you believe we
Please cast your votes if you believe we need an IPv4 mapped IPv6
lookup of IPv4 addresses (by name or dotted IP). The complete
APR_IPV6_V4MAPPED_OK patch is attached (and present on trunk,
unless/until voted down here on this thread.)
As Joe and I disagree on the usefulness of this API - we
On Nov 20, 2007, at 7:45 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please provide your input to release the tarball candidate
[+1] APR-util 1.2.12
OS X 10.4.11, Sol8
On 11/21/2007 01:45 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please provide your input to release the tarball candidate
[+1] APR-util 1.2.12
voting closes Friday afternoon/evening. Windows .zip's with all those
pesky .mak files on their way by morning.
Bill
Signatures: OK
md5sums :
On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 21:32 +0100, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
All tests past with the exception of the following error for sqlite2:
prepared select
Prepare statement failed!
(null)
Error in prepared select: rc=70023
prepared query
Prepare statement
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please provide your input to release the tarball candidate
[ ] APR-util 1.2.12
Just tried to run the test suite for apr v1.2.12, and I got this on
RHEL4/amd64:
testshm : -Line 254: Error destroying shared memory block
(2): No such file or
On Nov 21, 2007 11:29 PM, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please provide your input to release the tarball candidate
[ ] APR-util 1.2.12
Just tried to run the test suite for apr v1.2.12, and I got this on
RHEL4/amd64:
well you tested the APR
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
well you tested the APR 1.2.12
this is the APR-UTIL 1.2.12 thread :)
Quite aware of that, I didn't have the original thread handy :(
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Nov 21, 2007 11:45 PM, Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
well you tested the APR 1.2.12
this is the APR-UTIL 1.2.12 thread :)
Quite aware of that, I didn't have the original thread handy :(
Oh, I thought you mixed them up by mistake :)
FYI, the
Hi,
I tested with the tags/1.2.12 from svn, and got the following on
Solaris Express, with built-in iconv instead of apr-iconv.
testpass: SUCCESS
testmd4 : SUCCESS
testmd5 : SUCCESS
testdbd : SUCCESS
testdate: SUCCESS
testxml
Graham Leggett wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please provide your input to release the tarball candidate
[ ] APR-util 1.2.12
Just tried to run the test suite for apr v1.2.12, and I got this on
RHEL4/amd64:
testshm : -Line 254: Error destroying shared memory block
(2):
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 18:45 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please provide your input to release the tarball candidate
[-1] APR-util 1.2.12
Fedora 8, i686 and x86_64, testreslist still hangs exactly the same as
with 1.2.11. I guess r595990 didn't fix that problem after all.
PS. Tested
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 09:28 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
I did wait for about 5 minutes before killing it. OK, I'll try again.
Ah, yes. I should have waited another minute!
Passed test on both architectures, so my vote is now +1.
Sorry about the false alarm.
--
Bojan
Bojan Smojver wrote:
Fedora 8, i686 and x86_64, testreslist still hangs exactly the same as
with 1.2.11. I guess r595990 didn't fix that problem after all.
Did it hang, or did you abort before it was done?
I had to wait a good long while (many minutes), but it was ultimately
successful.
On Nov 22, 2007 12:13 AM, Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 18:45 -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please provide your input to release the tarball candidate
[-1] APR-util 1.2.12
Fedora 8, i686 and x86_64, testreslist still hangs exactly the same as
with
Henry Jen wrote:
Hi,
I tested with the tags/1.2.12 from svn, and got the following on
Solaris Express, with built-in iconv instead of apr-iconv.
testxlate : FAILED 1 of 1
Line 63: expected 22, but saw 0
Failed TestsTotal FailFailed %
On Thu, 2007-11-22 at 00:25 +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
Did it hang, or did you abort before it was done?
I did wait for about 5 minutes before killing it. OK, I'll try again.
--
Bojan
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please provide your input to release the tarball candidate
[ X ] APR-util 1.2.12
+1 for RHEL4/x86_64.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Please provide your input to release the tarball candidate
[ ] APR-util 1.2.12
voting closes Friday afternoon/evening. Windows .zip's with all those
pesky .mak files on their way by morning.
Bill
On Nov 21, 2007 2:45 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please provide your input to release the tarball candidate
[+1] APR-util 1.2.12
Ubuntu 7.10, x86. All good.
testreslist, albeit running for a long time, succeeded.
Note that:
No driver available for sqlite2.
No driver
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
Ubuntu 7.10, x86. All good.
testreslist, albeit running for a long time, succeeded.
Yea - it made me cringe. Really hope we can speed this up for the next
release cycle :-/
No driver available for sqlite2.
No driver available for sqlite3.
Yup.
, but abandoned upon the GA release n.{even}.0.
This would let us put 1.3.0 out there in the next week as alpha and begin
to assess our new encryption, multicast and thread pool features, without
the worry that they must be 'perfect' in this alpha.
On to the vote;
[ ] retain versioning as-is, e.g. 1.3.0
On Oct 9, 2007 10:48 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[X] retain versioning as-is, e.g. 1.3.0 is our next potential 'GA release'
[ ] adopt n.{odd} unstable versioning, e.g. 1.4.0 will be the 'GA release'
If we have API-incompatible changes, then start the 2.x.x process -
but
On 10/5/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Revert. New Macros are new APIs, and must wait for 1.3.x.
Ok, as people are totally missing the point, that I was calling a vote
for a modest versioning rules change that was in the spirit of both the
versioning
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
On 10/5/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've reverted, vote withdrawn.
End of 1.2 behavioral corrections, as least from me.
Eric, w.r.t. to your patch to httpd, keep it, as behavioral changes
to apr 1.2 appear to be out of the question. PLEASE
On 10/5/07, Erik Huelsmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/5/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Revert. New Macros are new APIs, and must wait for 1.3.x.
Ok, as people are totally missing the point, that I was calling a vote
for a modest versioning
On 10/5/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
Revert. New Macros are new APIs, and must wait for 1.3.x.
Ok, as people are totally missing the point, that I was calling a vote
for a modest versioning rules change that was in the spirit of both the
versioning
On 10/5/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric, w.r.t. to your patch to httpd, keep it, as behavioral changes
to apr 1.2 appear to be out of the question. PLEASE consider committing
or submitting your patch to 1.3 to make default timeout behavior the same
for Win32 as for
I see there are only two conclusions based on Joe's veto, therefore vote
for one;
[ ] Revert to inheriting INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE on win32 for all unspecified
stdio streams (1.2.8 behavior, retaining all other inheritance bugfixes)
and for the lifespan of 1.2.x remain incompatible
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I see there are only two conclusions based on Joe's veto, therefore vote
for one;
[ ] Revert to inheriting INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE on win32 for all unspecified
stdio streams (1.2.8 behavior, retaining all other inheritance bugfixes)
and for the lifespan
Revert. New Macros are new APIs, and must wait for 1.3.x.
-Paul
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I see there are only two conclusions based on Joe's veto, therefore vote
for one;
[ ] Revert to inheriting INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE on win32 for all unspecified
stdio streams (1.2.8 behavior
tweak
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I see there are only two conclusions based on Joe's veto, therefore vote
for one;
[ ] Revert to inheriting INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE on win32 for all unspecified
stdio streams (1.2.8 behavior, retaining all other inheritance
Paul Querna wrote:
Revert. New Macros are new APIs, and must wait for 1.3.x.
Ok, as people are totally missing the point, that I was calling a vote
for a modest versioning rules change that was in the spirit of both the
versioning rules and of the portability principal...
I've reverted, vote
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
Having just reviewed, I'm +1 on all four packages
+1/-1 Release
-
+7 -0 apr-1.2.11
+6 -0
On Sep 3, 2007, at 6:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or
four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
Good signatures on all, good md5 checksums (but what did you do to
get the upper case
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
[If you want to speed up the effort by comparing the packages, you can still
obtain the withdrawn packages at http
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
[If you want to speed up the effort by comparing the packages, you can still
obtain the withdrawn packages at http
On Sep 3, 2007, at 9:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or
four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
[If you want to speed up the effort by comparing the packages, you
can still
obtain
On 09/04/2007 03:38 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
[If you want to speed up the effort by comparing the packages
On 9/3/2007 at 7:54 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William
A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
[If you want to speed up the effort
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 09/04/2007 03:38 PM, jean-frederic clere wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
[If you want to speed up the effort
Sander Temme wrote:
On Sep 3, 2007, at 6:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four
times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
Good signatures on all, good md5 checksums (but what did you do
jean-frederic clere wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
I have:
testsockets : FAILED 1 of 6 on a Solaris9 SPARC Box with
SunStudio
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Which test failed? I stumbled across an issue on Solaris that the bind test
fails
because APR_HAVE_IPV6 was set, but ::1 was not bound on the loopback
interface
(only 127.0.0.1) on my box. A truss can help to find out.
bind(3, 0x000C3540,
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Thanks all who've tested so far, I won't be leaving the vote open all that
long, given the quick show of support for this release, and the minimal
delta from the last abandoned but well-tested candidate.
Oh - does anyone see a reason to leave this release vote
So far there were positive reports for:
- Linux: Fedora 7, i686 and x86_64. CentOS 5, i686 and x86_64. RHEL 4,
i686, CentOS 4, x86_64, Ubuntu 7.04 x86, Ubuntu Breezy on a dual
amd64.
- OS X 10.4.10, MacOSX 10.4.10 on PowerPC
- FreeBSD on an Intel Celeron and
- NetWare
-
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
I have:
testsockets : FAILED 1 of 6 on a Solaris9
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Which test failed? I stumbled across an issue on Solaris that the bind test
fails
because APR_HAVE_IPV6 was set, but ::1 was not bound on the loopback
interface
(only 127.0.0.1) on my box. A truss can help to
.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.10
[ ] apr-util-1.2.9
[ ] apr-0.9.15
[ ] apr-util-0.9.14
Win
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
[If you want to speed up the effort by comparing the packages, you can still
obtain the withdrawn packages at http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/abandoned
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 20:54 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
+1/-1 Release
[+1] apr-1.2.11
[+1] apr-util-1.2.10
[+1] apr-0.9.16
[+1] apr-util-0.9.15
Fedora 7, i686 and x86_64. CentOS 5, i686 and x86_64. RHEL 4, i686.
CentOS 4, x86_64.
--
Bojan
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Just to make it official cause my emails were treated as SPAM.
testfile and testproc are failing on win32 (hope this note will pass)
What a headache (your email list battles I mean - not that we have to
deal with some errors!) Thanks for your
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 00:51 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Let's take it, if someone beats me to the commit, great.
Thanks. Done in r571744.
--
Bojan
Mladen Turk wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Just to make it official cause my emails were treated as SPAM.
testfile and testproc are failing on win32 (hope this note will pass)
What a headache (your email list battles I mean - not that we have to
deal with some
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Hmm,
testfile is fixed now, however testproc still fails with
testproc: \Line 68: expected 0, but saw 70014
-Line 143: expected 0, but saw 70014
This is apr-1.2 branch.
Are u seeing the same when running testall.exe -v?
Right. That's what I just said
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 14:47 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
PS. DBD tests don't actually run in apr-util, as they need at least one
parameter (driver) to go ahead. Something we need to fix in
test/Makefile.in.
Bill, would you like me to backport r571754 from the trunk, where I just
fixed this?
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 14:47 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
PS. DBD tests don't actually run in apr-util, as they need at least one
parameter (driver) to go ahead. Something we need to fix in
test/Makefile.in.
Bill, would you like me to backport r571754 from the trunk,
Mladen Turk wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four
times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[-1] apr-1.2.10
Just to make it official cause my emails were treated
On 08/31/2007 07:05 AM, josh rotenberg wrote:
On 8/30/07, Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PPS. Tests on apr-util-0.9.14 require a key press mid way through, after
this:
Yes 186124938900 Sun, 24 Dec 2028 05:43:09 GMT
Yes 5648237200 Sat, 16 Oct 1971 17:32:52 GMT
Yes
On Fri, Aug 31, 2007 at 02:47:32PM +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Note that with CentOS 5 (x86_64) and RHEL 4 (i686), apr-1.2.10, testuser
fails when run as an unprivileged user (this is from CentOS 5 box):
-
testuser: //bin/sh: line 1: 31277
On Aug 31, 2007, at 4:57 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 08/31/2007 07:05 AM, josh rotenberg wrote:
On 8/30/07, Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PPS. Tests on apr-util-0.9.14 require a key press mid way
through, after
this:
Yes 186124938900 Sun, 24 Dec 2028 05:43:09 GMT
Yes
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 11:17 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
Can you check whether the trunk works on the same boxes? Presuming this
is a just another segfault due to some unexpected test failure, it could
be PR 39075 or 41105.
I'll give that a check.
--
Bojan
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 11:17 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
Can you check whether the trunk works on the same boxes?
Indeed it does. And the diff between testuser.c in trunk and 1.2.x shows
why (partial diff below):
--- test/testuser.c 2007-07-03 10:00:56.0 +1000
+++
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 11:17 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
it could
be PR 39075 or 41105.
After applying that fix in r571651, the test now fails and it's PR 41105
(not enough space in grbuf, I guess).
Given comments in that bug report, Bill,are you OK with applying the fix
from the trunk (r532789)
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Fri, 2007-08-31 at 11:17 +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
it could
be PR 39075 or 41105.
After applying that fix in r571651, the test now fails and it's PR 41105
(not enough space in grbuf, I guess).
Given comments in that bug report, Bill,are you OK with applying the fix
On 8/29/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.10
[ ] apr-util-1.2.9
Ubuntu 7.04 Linux
On Aug 29, 2007, at 9:12 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or
four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.10
[ ] apr-util-1.2.9
[ ] apr-0.9.15
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[-1] apr-1.2.10
Win .zip's will follow when I have a few minutes on a win box to extract
Everything succeeded for me with a basic configure/make/make
(check|test) on Mac OS X 10.4.10 (Intel).
Darwin jrotenberg-2.local 8.10.1 Darwin Kernel Version 8.10.1: Wed May
23 16:33:00 PDT 2007; root:xnu-792.22.5~1/RELEASE_I386 i386 i386
[+1] apr-1.2.10
[+1] apr-util-1.2.9
[+1] apr-0.9.15
On 08/30/2007 01:40 PM, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
On 8/29/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr
On 08/29/2007 03:12 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
[ +1 ] apr-1.2.10
[ +1 ] apr-util-1.2.9
[ +1 ] apr-0.9.15
[ +1 ] apr
On 8/30/07, Ruediger Pluem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 08/30/2007 01:40 PM, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
On 8/29/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four
times,
just review those you can as you can; http
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 08:12 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[+1] apr-1.2.10
[+1] apr-util-1.2.9
[+1] apr
On 8/30/07, Bojan Smojver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PPS. Tests on apr-util-0.9.14 require a key press mid way through, after
this:
Yes 186124938900 Sun, 24 Dec 2028 05:43:09 GMT
Yes 5648237200 Sat, 16 Oct 1971 17:32:52 GMT
Yes 121960685500 Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:40:55 GMT
Did
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.10
[ ] apr-util-1.2.9
[ ] apr-0.9.15
[ ] apr-util-0.9.14
Win .zip's will follow when I have
On 8/29/2007 at 7:12 AM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William
A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please review and vote on those you have time to - reply once or four times,
just review those you can as you can; http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+1/-1 Release
[ ] apr-1.2.10
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 17:49 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[+1] apr-iconv-1.2.0
And +1 to all three packages, here.
I'm finally in one place, with connectivity, at last. I'll stage these
all up with updated web content tomorrow (and probably tackle placing
our
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 17:49 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[+1] apr-iconv-1.2.0
Fedora 7, i386, builds against APR 1.2.9 (both against APR build tree
and installed APR).
One note, though. Without --prefix option to configure, the build fails
Looks like
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 17:49 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[+1] apr-iconv-1.2.0
Fedora 7, i386, builds against APR 1.2.9 (both against APR build tree
and installed APR).
One note, though. Without --prefix option to configure, the build fails
with:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
That's +4 for apr's (+5 once I vote), +1 for apr-iconv (+2 once I vote).
I'll chime in and close this round of release votes once I have
one more +/- apr-iconv 1.2.0.
Ping?
.
It seems most of the concerns are addressed, and while worth addressing,
not necessary for this release.
Votes, please, folks? And while we are on the subject, note the subj
says [vote] - not [discuss] :) Please use appropriate subject renames
when you launch off on a tangent/report build
On Jun 4, 2007, at 3:49 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+/-1? Package to release
[+1] apr-0.9.14
[+1] apr-1.2.9
[+1] apr-iconv-1.2.0
Three packages so far to consider, votes welcome
FreeBSD 6.1 and 4.11, see below. +1 for release. Both
On 6/6/07, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:24:07AM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
1. kill AI_ADDRCONFIG for APR_UNSPEC
In my opinion, AI_ADDRCONFIG is a useful default flag and prevents
unneccessary delay and lookups.
+1
4. Add
On 06/07/2007 12:10 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 06/06/2007 11:45 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'm quite partial to your third solution, I trust from performance that
this is the greatest net efficiency (but per platform tests would be needed
to confirm this).
On 6/7/07, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
I hear that there are real performance reasons to maintain
AI_ADDRCONFIG for AF_UNSPEC:
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2003/msg01377.html
I first though we could do a strcmp to check for
On 6/7/07, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:24:07AM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
1. kill AI_ADDRCONFIG for APR_UNSPEC
In my opinion, AI_ADDRCONFIG is a useful default flag and prevents
unneccessary delay and lookups.
2. document ::1 and any other
On 6/7/07, Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:06:10AM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
You said (or so I understood) that APR should add a new flag
(APR_NUMERIC_ADDRESS) to it's API. When a programmer wants to use
::1 in a call to apr_sockaddr_info_get,
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 12:03:03AM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 06/06/2007 11:45 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'm quite partial to your third solution, I trust from performance that
this is the greatest net efficiency (but per platform tests would be needed
to confirm this). This is
Joe Orton wrote:
I was hoping to see this get some testing on some more exotic/less
modern systems, to try to flush out any regressions :(
Well the new logic is quite clean. Someday a lcllibpth like variable
that perl builds would be sweet (for searching the unusual/platform
specific
Davi Arnaut wrote:
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 09:38 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
testlfs : Line 265: Large Files not supported
Or is this just a misleading message saying these things are enabled by
default on this platform?
Good question. LFS doesn't exist
Disclaimer: I haven't checked to see if this is the right behaviour, I
have an exam tomorow :(
Ubuntu 7.04 32 bit
testsockets : \Segmentation fault (core dumped)
I've tested it twice, with a clean checkout of trunk both times; same behaviour.
All tests before this one worked fine.
--
I took http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/apr-1.2.9.tar.gz
Hope I'm on target now:)
I've done two tests. One in which I ran buildconf myself and one without.
For each test I then ran:
./configure
make
make test
Both failed with:
testsockets : \/bin/bash: line 1: 10039 Segmentation fault
the cause: segmentation fault at:
rv = apr_socket_bind(sock, to);
from static void sendto_receivefrom(abts_case *tc, void *data)
from testsockets.c
the second parameter given is NULL:
apr_socket_bind (sock=0x80d3c78, sa=0x0) at network_io/unix/sockets.c:154
the NULL value comes from
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Davi Arnaut wrote:
Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 09:38 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
testlfs : Line 265: Large Files not supported
Or is this just a misleading message saying these things are enabled by
default on this platform?
Good
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 05:49:43PM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/
+/-1? Package to release
[+1] apr-0.9.14
[+1] apr-1.2.9
These both show no regressions on Linux/i386 and x86_64.
w.r.t. APR_HAS_LARGE_FILES, please see list archives for rationale, it
Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
the cause: segmentation fault at:
rv = apr_socket_bind(sock, to);
from static void sendto_receivefrom(abts_case *tc, void *data)
from testsockets.c
the second parameter given is NULL:
apr_socket_bind (sock=0x80d3c78, sa=0x0) at
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 11:40:41AM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
I took http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/apr-1.2.9.tar.gz
Hope I'm on target now:)
I've done two tests. One in which I ran buildconf myself and one without.
For each test I then ran:
./configure
make
make test
Both
901 - 1000 of 1267 matches
Mail list logo
