I'll give it another whack later today but from IDE this time.
I'll keep you posted
On 1/6/07, Gustavo Lopes mail:Apache@geleia.net wrote:
No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
studio
2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the manifest
where exactly did you add this in the Makefile?
After some searching it does seem that the errors I' mgetting are related to
missing or wrong manifest files.
On 1/6/07, Gustavo Lopes mail:Apache@geleia.net wrote:
No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
studio
2005
, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 18:39
Subject: Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
Very true. Steffan, in order to be a community player, we prefer that
you do NOT publish unreleased binaries unless you VERY
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
studio 2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the
manifest files.
What trouble? All the libraries/exe's have a post build step that does this.
Going back to a virgin unpack of the
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
No problems compiling (with openssl0.9.8d and zlib1.2.3) with visual
studio 2005 from the command line, except for the usual trouble with the
manifest files.
What trouble? All the libraries/exe's have a post build step that does this.
where exactly did you add this in the Makefile?
After some searching it does seem that the errors I' mgetting are related
to
missing or wrong manifest files.
Line 608 of /Makefile.win.
Then prepare the environment and build with nmake -f Makefile.win PORT=80
INSTDIR=x:\path installr
You
. etc.
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 20:21
Subject: Re: [VOTE] httpd-2.2.4 release candidate for review
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Gustavo Lopes wrote:
No problems compiling
On 01/06/2007 08:41 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
contain the following tarballs for approval
httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
.asc / .md5 OK
httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
.asc / .md5 OK
+1 on Solaris 8 / 9
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
-0 on SuSE Linux 10.1 x86_64, gcc 4.1.0
Due to the apr-util bug 41308
(http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41308) the 64 bit
build does not work if a system wide 32 bit expat library is present.
Can you clarify - if you specific --with-builtin-expat
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/ will soon (within the hour, upon resync)
contain the following tarballs for approval
httpd-2.2.4.tar.bz2 [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4.tar.gz [.asc|.md5]
httpd-2.2.4-win32-src.zip [.asc|.md5]
+/-1
[ ] Release httpd 2.2.4
Let the voting begin, and kick off 2.2.5
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd still like to push a 2.2.4 out, say VERY early in Dec.
There are some backports awaiting just 1 single vote
to be approved, and others which look VERY worthwhile
to be in this version. Let's all take some time and
look over them ;)
Well, I'm a little confused, post
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd still like to push a 2.2.4 out, say VERY early in Dec.
There are some backports awaiting just 1 single vote
to be approved, and others which look VERY worthwhile
to be in this version. Let's all take some time and
look over them
2.2.4 out
now, then I'm +0.9. I'd still like to RM, but if you
have the time and desire, +1 there as well.
It's all yours :)
Seriously, some of us will likely hack at this during the holidays,
and at some point, the version drift will be so great that it becomes
very hard to track down where
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Seriously, some of us will likely hack at this during the holidays,
and at some point, the version drift will be so great that it becomes
very hard to track down where breakage was introduced.
2.2.4 by early this coming week, followed by 2.2.5 after the holidays
On 12/15/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see your point 100% though... I really hoped that we would
have had a 2.2.4 out sooner, but the votes didn't come as
fast as expected :)
What votes? I haven't seen any votes for 2.2.4. -- justin
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 12/15/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see your point 100% though... I really hoped that we would
have had a 2.2.4 out sooner, but the votes didn't come as
fast as expected :)
What votes? I haven't seen any votes for 2.2.4. -- justin
Jim Jagielski wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Seriously, some of us will likely hack at this during the holidays,
and at some point, the version drift will be so great that it becomes
very hard to track down where breakage was introduced.
2.2.4 by early this coming week, followed by 2.2.5
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
But tell you what, if you want to do a 2.2.4 Sun/Mon
then I'll do 2.2.5 mid-Jan (assuming there's enough for
a release)...
That sounds like a deal, late Sun or early Mon depending on the localized
family crises :)
I would have
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:44:33 -0500 (EST)
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 12/15/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see your point 100% though... I really hoped that we would
have had a 2.2.4 out sooner, but the votes didn't come as
fast
Nick Kew wrote:
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:44:33 -0500 (EST)
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 12/15/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see your point 100% though... I really hoped that we would
have had a 2.2.4 out sooner
On 11/28/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually as posted to apr - later today if nobody screams (waiting mostly
to make sure the other projects haven't noticed any glaring flaws - we now
answer to stdcxx, the native-internal tomcat connectors, svn etc. APR seems
to continue
I'd still like to push a 2.2.4 out, say VERY early in Dec.
There are some backports awaiting just 1 single vote
to be approved, and others which look VERY worthwhile
to be in this version. Let's all take some time and
look over them ;)
If its in the first week of Dec, I can do a test build on Win32 and Win64
If its mid Dec I can't due to exames.
On 11/28/06, Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd still like to push a 2.2.4 out, say VERY early in Dec.
There are some backports awaiting just 1 single vote
to be approved
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd still like to push a 2.2.4 out, say VERY early in Dec.
There are some backports awaiting just 1 single vote
to be approved, and others which look VERY worthwhile
to be in this version. Let's all take some time and
look over them ;)
AFAIK, the only semi-blocking issue
On Nov 28, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd still like to push a 2.2.4 out, say VERY early in Dec.
There are some backports awaiting just 1 single vote
to be approved, and others which look VERY worthwhile
to be in this version. Let's all take some time and
look
Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Nov 28, 2006, at 12:08 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I'd still like to push a 2.2.4 out, say VERY early in Dec.
There are some backports awaiting just 1 single vote
to be approved, and others which look VERY worthwhile
to be in this version. Let's
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I know that Bill is looking at a release of APR and
that alternate method would, I think, be better
implemented in APR than directly in httpd...
Eww, no thanks. AFAIK the same results can be achieved using existing
APR interfaces: a non-blocking apr_socket_recv()
Joe Orton wrote:
2) it's a really bad implementation. You can do the same thing portably
by doing a poll() and a recv(,MSG_PEEK) AFAICT. There is no need to
muck about with ioctls, and it can be done already without adding
anything to APR.
2. b) using select() like that will
Joe Orton wrote:
recv(, MSG_PEEK) is not portable
It's certainly *more* portable; it should work on any POSIX system
unlike the ioctl. Have you tested it on Win32? With APR you'd have to
use apr_socket_recvfrom to be able to pass a flags argument, annoyingly.
I can't think of a
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I offer to be RM.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I offer to be RM.
Yes - we need to, +1, and I'd offered to RM APR... we've been whittling
down the apr bug list (primarily platform-by-platform quirks.) I can have
APR
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I would like to propose the backport of proxy alternate
is_socket_connected. This is IMHO very crucial
for AJP to work. Without that the loadbalancer is
unusable for most
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I would like to propose the backport of proxy alternate
is_socket_connected. This is IMHO very crucial
for AJP to work. Without
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I know that Bill is looking at a release of APR and
that alternate method would, I think, be better
implemented in APR than directly in httpd...
Sure it can be done, but in that case it would require at
least a minor version bump.
I have a proto that uses
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I offer to be RM.
I think we should start thinking about it too. I think we should also
consider requesting that APR{,-Util} 1.2.8 gets done by the APR
developers
On Nov 8, 2006, at 5:34 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I offer to be RM.
I'll put your tarball code up on ajax and people if Joe doesn't beat
me to it.
S.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]http
implementation of the old
is_socket_connected() than in 2.2.3 in 2.2.4... Maybe
a compile time flag? I'd like some easy way for
someone to disable it if need be...
For APR, I was simply thinking of apr_is_socket_connected()
and yeah, 2.2.4 would require that version of APR
In any case, I don't see a backport in STATUS so it's
all academic anyway ;)
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 08:34:27 -0500
Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I offer to be RM.
Fairy nuff. I have some significant updates I'd like to add
(stop mod_dbd generating bogus errors when
thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments? I offer to be RM.I think we should start thinking about it too.I think we should also
consider requesting that APR{,-Util} 1.2.8 gets done by the APRdevelopers...With the APR hat on, I volunteer to RM a 1.2.x release of APR andAPR-Util.How does this Saturday
I'd be willing to test the tarballs on win x64 (32-bit and 64-bit) and on vista (32-bit).
Mladen Turk wrote:
Anyhow, mod_jk works on all the platforms with the
exact code like a charm ;)
With my non-devil's-advocate hat on, the code itself is
pretty basic Steven's anyway...
--
===
Jim Jagielski [|]
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Anyhow, mod_jk works on all the platforms with the
exact code like a charm ;)
With my non-devil's-advocate hat on, the code itself is
pretty basic Steven's anyway...
It might be, not sure, but as Ferengi Rule 31 states:
Never make fun of a Ferengi's
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:27:31PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I would like to propose the backport of proxy alternate
is_socket_connected
Scroll back a half hour :)
Seriously - do folks need the extra day - or does anyone object to Friday
midday?
Paul Querna wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I offer to be RM.
I think we should
On Nov 8, 2006, at 1:47 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:27:31PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Looking over CHANGES and STATUS, I think we should
start thinking about a 2.2.4 release. Comments?
I would like to propose the backport
101 - 146 of 146 matches
Mail list logo
