Has anybody gotten apr-util to compile with apr-iconv?
I get the following on win32 when building apr-util with apr and apr-iconv
all present:
apr-util\xlate\xlate.c(181): error C2198: 'apr_iconv_close' : too few
arguments for call through pointer-to-function
apr-util\xlate\xlate.c(182):
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:09:38AM +0100, David Reid wrote:
new apr-util tarballs are now available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/
+1 for these too. Tested using --with-ldap too this time, there are
compiler warnings in the LDAP code but nothing critical.
joe
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:09 AM +0100 David Reid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
new apr-util tarballs are now available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/
So far I've seen only 1 +1 for a release. Anyone else care to vote?
+1. Passes testall for both apr and apr-util on
+1 on NetWare
Brad
Brad Nicholes
Senior Software Engineer
Novell, Inc., the leading provider of Net business solutions
http://www.novell.com
David Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thursday, August 26, 2004 2:09:38
AM
new apr-util tarballs are now available at
http://www.apache.org/~dreid/
So far
David Reid wrote:
Thanks. Anyone from the world of windows care to comment...
Here are some windows comments :) .
Compilation:
sha2.c
random\unix\sha2.c(461) : warning C4244: '=' : conversion from
'apr_uint64_t' to 'unsigned int', possible loss of data
random\unix\sha2.c(507) : warning C4244:
David Reid wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Thursday, August 26, 2004 9:09 AM +0100 David Reid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
new apr-util tarballs are now available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/
So far I've seen only 1 +1 for a release. Anyone else care to vote?
+1. Passes testall for both
--On Thursday, August 26, 2004 6:15 PM +0200 Mladen Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Well, I should run the test with verbose:
Listed only the one with verbose messages
(both SUCCESS and FAIL).
I hate to ask this: but have these tests ever worked? I guess it's sucky that
some tests fail on Win32,
Mladen Turk wrote:
David Reid wrote:
Thanks. Anyone from the world of windows care to comment...
Here are some windows comments :) .
Mladen - please don't take this personally - it's not directed at you
directly.
I had to go for a short break and count to ten before replying to this.
I
David Reid wrote:
If anyone tries to veto the release for these problem they better have
such a bloody good technical reason that it would get Saddam out of jail
and back onto the streets...
Test failures are bugs, and bugs can be fixed in v1.0.1 and beyond.
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
--On Thursday, August 26, 2004 6:41 PM +0200 Graham Leggett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Test failures are bugs, and bugs can be fixed in v1.0.1 and beyond.
Exactly. -- justin
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Well, I should run the test with verbose:
Listed only the one with verbose messages
(both SUCCESS and FAIL).
I hate to ask this: but have these tests ever worked? I guess it's
sucky that some tests fail on Win32, but if they never worked, I don't
consider it a
+1 (seems to work fine on Solaris 9/x86)
-aaron
On Aug 26, 2004, at 1:09 AM, David Reid wrote:
new apr-util tarballs are now available at
http://www.apache.org/~dreid/
So far I've seen only 1 +1 for a release. Anyone else care to vote?
david
David Reid wrote:
new apr-util tarballs are now available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/
So far I've seen only 1 +1 for a release. Anyone else care to vote?
+1
-Fitz
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 12:29:46PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
+1 (seems to work fine on Solaris 9/x86)
Success on solaris sparc 8 too with the small detail that I had
to disable ipv6 to avoid a segfault in the tcp test.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
14 matches
Mail list logo