Paul Querna wrote:
Graham Leggett wrote:
This block of code definitely belongs in apr-util, you are 100% right - but moving it to apr-util is a completely separate issue to fixing the bug as committed.
Then this 'bug' should be submitted as a bug in APR-Util, not httpd.
Not really.

There are 2 bugs:
  1. The code is wrong.
  2. The code is in the wrong place.
Given that APR is more or less frozen for httpd 2.0, it is critical to some of us (e.g. me the producer of the patch), to fix (1) in 2.0 (and ideally 2.1 as well) *now*.  Fixing (2) in 2.1 at some point would be nice.
So far this code will only be moved in httpd v2.1/v2.2 and apr v1.0, none of the apr-util restructuring was to be backported to httpd v2.0/apr v0.9, as the LDAP stuff is experimental in v2.0 anyway (it's not experimental in v2.1/v2.2).
So, the answer still seems to get the changes into APR-Util 1.X.  If it can be later back ported to 0.9.X, great, if not, hopefully we will have an httpd-2.2 release sometime soon.
Whatever I guess -- I'm hand-stitching in this and other patches into all binaries I build anyway, so if it takes a long time for those not using my binaries to benefit, I guess I should not care.

--
Jess Holle

Reply via email to