On 8/27/2015 1:45 AM, Gregg Smith wrote:
On 8/26/2015 9:56 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Aug 26, 2015 11:41 PM, "Branko Čibej"<[email protected]> wrote:
On 27.08.2015 06:37, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 27.08.2015 05:46, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
Several years ago, we combined the functionality of apr and apr-util,
and that library no longer draws in sub-dependencies until specific
components are necessary (dbm providers, dbd providers, crypto
providers etc).
It seems overtime that we produce a release based on that effort, I'm
offering in absence of other volunteers to prepare an -alpha
candidate
in mid-September.
We don't work on the same clock as downstream distributors, so
whatever effort we make in Sept won't see broad distribution until
2016. But if the httpd, svn and other consumers have successfully
integrated with the 2.0 trunk/ development effort, it seems like this
is a good time to begin to make that happen.
Thoughts/comments/roadblocks/showstoppers?
Good move.
There are a few long-outstanding patches from the SVN devs that I'd
like
to get into the code first, so mid-September is a good goal.
On that topic, what would it take to take the Windows cmake build off
'experimental' status for 2.0 and remove the .dsp and .mak files?
IMVHO?
1. Purge the dsp/mak files.
2. Promote cmake structure to create valid win or unix or other builds.
I am personally very interested in this effort and will jump on some
aspects of it this week.
First I must state that I am not against CMake or getting it off of
'experimental' status, I'm glad we have the option now. I am for
promoting it and for not even mentioning the old school way in
whatever readme there is on building.
I am against removing the dsw/dsp however (there are no mak/dep
files). It's not a huge load, there's only 24 files counting all the
crypto, dbd, dbm and test dsp/dsw/win out of the 631. You barely
notice them if you're not looking for them. I would not be against
chucking out the dbd_freetds and even the sqlite2 dsp files which is
then 23/22.
VC10 is rather hopeless but 11 on seems workable. Renaming the dll and
lib projects to -2 will stop the insensate whining about. This should
not be a problem in 2.0.
Let's not remove them and just act like they're not there.
And by "insensate whining," I'm speaking of the post VC9 compilers, not
users.
