On Dec 28, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I took a look at this, but the new patch appears to cause some compile
warnings (not that this code is totally warning free in the first
place, but I'd rather not make the problem worse).
I'm not confident with the patch either, especially si
On 12/27/05, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2005, at 5:03 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
>
> > On 12/22/05, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I concur with the suggested change in http://issues.apache.org/
> >> bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37650. My message on it was ht
On Dec 22, 2005, at 5:03 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 12/22/05, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I concur with the suggested change in http://issues.apache.org/
bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37650. My message on it was http://
marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apr-dev&m=113511544618645&w=2.
Commit
On 12/22/05, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I concur with the suggested change in http://issues.apache.org/
> bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37650. My message on it was http://
> marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apr-dev&m=113511544618645&w=2.
Committed in r358652. For some reason I had assumed that
On Dec 22, 2005, at 12:03 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
On 12/22/05, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It would still be very nice to get that one line fixed in apr-iconv
since apr-util is a dependency for log4cxx. As long as apr-util is
not being built by Gump, neither is log4cxx and it
On 12/22/05, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It would still be very nice to get that one line fixed in apr-iconv
> since apr-util is a dependency for log4cxx. As long as apr-util is
> not being built by Gump, neither is log4cxx and it eliminates the
> only continuous integration syste
On Dec 20, 2005, at 5:19 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Garrett Rooney wrote:
So you want gump to build a configuration that virtually no users
actually use? That seems totally useless to me. Gump should be
building and testing the system as it is intended to be used, if this
was a win32 bu
Garrett Rooney wrote:
So you want gump to build a configuration that virtually no users
actually use? That seems totally useless to me. Gump should be
building and testing the system as it is intended to be used, if this
was a win32 build, I'd be all for it testing apr-iconv, but it's a
unix b
On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
The problem started when the Gump people upgraded to a new version of
GCC.
As I suspected.
There's even a bug filed about this issue, but nobody has gotten
motivated enough to fix it yet.
Guess it is bug 37650. I did do a Bugzilla sea
On 12/20/05, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Garrett Rooney wrote:
> >
> > The problem started when the Gump people upgraded to a new version of
> > GCC. There's even a bug filed about this issue, but nobody has gotten
> > motivated enough to fix it yet. In addition to fixing th
Garrett Rooney wrote:
The problem started when the Gump people upgraded to a new version of
GCC. There's even a bug filed about this issue, but nobody has gotten
motivated enough to fix it yet. In addition to fixing the actual
code, it would be nice if we could list apr-iconv as an optional
de
On 12/20/05, Curt Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The code hasn't been changed in over a year, so I'm guessing the
> failure is due to a change in the compiler on the Gump box. I recall
> encountering problems with this line in other compilers, but I could
> not a patch in my previous bug rep
12 matches
Mail list logo
