Joe Schaefer wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----
>
>
>> From: Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>
>> To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
>> Cc: Issac Goldstand <mar...@beamartyr.net>; apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
>> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:09:23 AM
>> Subject: Re: svn commit: r733221 - in /httpd/apreq/branches/v2_10:
>> include/apreq_version.h library/module_cgi.c library/parser.c
>> module/apache2/handle.c
>>
>> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 06:32 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>> Are you planning to pursue 2.10 as RM or
>>> should we be moving on to 2.11? The only outstanding issue I am aware
>>> of is pgollucci's claim that the perl modules aren't linking correctly
>>> to libapreq2 on Solaris. While that would be nice to fix, I don't consider
>>> it a showstopper either.
>>>
>> I'm kinda waiting for the outcome of that discussion on the list before
>> we go ahead. From what I can see, current decision is to have 2.11
>> released, right? If so, let's roll that (I'm not attached to version
>> numbers in any way).
>>
>
> I've looked over pgollucci's build tree on the perl zone and confirmed
> that the perl .so modules cannot locate either libapreq2 nor libapr.
> We may need to add more rpath-related stuff to our linking flags.
>
> With respect to 2.10 or 2.11, it all depends on what we wanna do with that
> v2_10 branch. It's current now, and I don't mind keeping it synced with
> trunk if someone's planning to release from it this week. But if not, I
> think we should move on to 2.11.
>
>
>
>
Regardless of that, I'd like to merge in the enhanced-cgi stuff later in
the week. So we can either do 2 consecutive releases or get 2.10 out
the door now and re-vote on 2.11 in another week or so.
