I vote for just deleting the eunit bits in our packaged version. Its not like we use them. And I'd rather delete the eunit code rather than grab it as a dependency (and then deal with figuring out what to do when there's an installed version or not or should be but a distro has stripped it out).
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> wrote: > I did and it was rewritten upstream > (https://github.com/mochi/mochiweb/commit/e8156a1c44d054f1f6e9396c828751ed22418d7f). > > It's after the release we have so we have a few options; > > 1) Upgrade to a newer version. > 2) Backport the patch. > 3) Add eunit dependency to autotools. > > I vote for 3 for 1.1 and then upgrade and revert that when mochiweb > makes a release with the fix. > > B. > > On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 8 Dec 2010, at 00:05, Robert Newson wrote: >> >>> Not to hijack the thread but the Mochiweb upgrade also makes eunit a >>> build dependency which has caused issues on Debian installs (eunit >>> being a separate and optional package). >> >> Didn't you propose a patch to mochiweb that makes eunit build-optional? >> >> Cheers >> Jan >> -- >> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Robert Newson <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> +1 for R13B04. >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Paul Davis wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, the mochiweb we're shipping in 1.1.0 has abandoned support for >>>>>>>>> R12B05, so we should revisit our minimum required Erlang version. Do >>>>>>>>> we have a compelling reason for supporting anything below R13B04? >>>>>>>>> That release introduces support for recursive type specifications, >>>>>>>>> which are useful when describing revision trees and JSON objects to >>>>>>>>> dialyzer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, Adam >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> +1 for R13something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Paul, is there a NIF-based argument for a particular R13 release? I >>>>>>> know we don't use NIFs in 1.1.x, but it'd be nice to limit the number >>>>>>> of times we have to bump. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> There's nothing major that I remember in the R13 series. Maybe a few >>>>>> bug fixes or something, but I'd have to look. >>>>>> >>>>>> The major NIF jump was with R14. For instance, integrating Emonk >>>>>> requires R14. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, NIF's are awesome. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I stand corrected. Out of curiosity I went back and checked the >>>>> progression of NIF support. Turns out they're not even available until >>>>> R13B03. For some reason I thought the first version was in the last of >>>>> the R12's. >>>>> >>>>> Also, in R13B04 there are some noticeable upgrades to things like NIF >>>>> function signatures and other bits that would be backwards >>>>> incompatible (also, no one uses the version from R13B03 anymore, so if >>>>> we wanted to backport something it'd be a major breakage). >>>>> >>>>> So I revise my statement, I'd vote for R13B04 as the minimum. Also, it >>>>> has the nice symmetry of relying on the latest R$(MAJOR)B04 Erlang VM >>>>> which I declare to be the optimum balance between new features and >>>>> stability. >>>>> >>>> >> >> >
