Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
Regards
Rüdiger
rj...@apache.org wrote:
Author: rjung
Date: Thu Sep 4 09:21:16 2014
New Revision: 1622429
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1622429
Log:
Propose.
Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
Bummer, I guess you are right. mod_proxy.h seems to be part of the
public API so we can't backport like this. Will revoke the
Is there a reason to not bundle the msvcrtxxx.dll that's microsoft includes in
the redist area?
So that's what we've taken to doing with our apache. Simply including the
version that microsoft bundles with 2010 in the web server bin directory.
Thanks,
Andy
On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 17:52 -0500,
You can't, AFAIK, due to licensing. You need to include the *installer*
that comes in VC's redist area and can run that installer from yours to
install their runtime...
Or you can statically link to the runtime, but I'm not sure we want to
do that.
On 04/09/2014 17:48, Wang, Andy wrote:
Is
You can do this. However, that doesn't solve the problem for users of one
distribution of httpd (from any origin, not just the ASF) linked to a particular
msvcr###, interoperating with a module built by another third party for a
different msvcr### (or trying to build your own add-in with a
- Original Message - Subject: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?
From: Wang, Andy aw...@ptc.com
Date: 9/4/14 9:48 am
To: dev@httpd.apache.org dev@httpd.apache.org
Is there a reason to not bundle the msvcrtxxx.dll that's microsoft includes in
the redist area?
So that's what we've
I overlooked 2 other viable options
[ ] Roll -win32-src-r2.zip with apr-util 1.5.2 (pre-breakage) and
corresponding binaries
[ ] Roll -win32-src-r2.zip with apr-util 1.5.4 (upon release) and
corresponding binaries
wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
Finally returned to VC6, having replaced my older
According to:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8kche8ah.aspx
And
the redist.txt file in the Visual Studio Redist directory:
For your convenience, we have provided the following folders for use when
redistributing VC++ runtime files. Subject to the license terms for the
software, you may
Good point. I'd forgotten about compatibility with third party modules.
That said, by arbitrarily selecting VC6 aren't you also stuck with the same
problem?
Thanks,
Andy
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 08:33 -0700, wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
You can do this. However, that doesn't solve the problem for
I picked 2010 because it's what I have :)
But that's sort of the point of my question. Why pick something so old
as VC6 and not something newer, and hopefully better.
FYI, I'm not complaining or nit-picking. I'm a complete newbie hack at
Windows development and trying to understand the train
On 9/4/2014 8:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
I overlooked 2 other viable options
[ ] Roll -win32-src-r2.zip with apr-util 1.5.2 (pre-breakage) and
corresponding binaries
[ ] Roll -win32-src-r2.zip with apr-util 1.5.4 (upon release) and
corresponding binaries
Assumes a much quicker path
As long as we bump mmn, we should be OK.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
Regards
Rüdiger
rj...@apache.org wrote:
Author:
I think we can, as long as we bump the MMN...
On Sep 4, 2014, at 7:22 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@kippdata.de wrote:
Am 04.09.2014 um 12:13 schrieb Ruediger Pluem:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets
inside the struct.
But IMHO that would be a major bump and not a minor one. And we cannot do major
ones in stable branches.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:55
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Can we really backport this?
We are increasing the size of proxy_worker_shared and changing offsets inside
the struct.
True, but if we bump the mmn, that should cover it.
I know of no-one other than httpd that uses
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jim Jagielski
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. September 2014 19:58
An: dev@httpd.apache.org
Betreff: Re: svn commit: r1622429 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS
On Sep 4, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Ruediger Pluem rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Can we really
I think, in this case, a minor could be justified.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 1:57 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
But IMHO that would be a major bump and not a minor one. And we cannot do
major ones in stable branches.
Regards
Rüdiger
-Ursprüngliche
Agreed all the way around...
PS: I *think* we also did this before, when we needed
to bump up some *scoreboard* field sizes (to support
IPv6) and we still did it w/ a minor bump, iirc.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com wrote:
No... only if the patch is restructured to preserve all existing structure
members at their current offsets. New struct members at the end of an existing
structure is the definition of a minor mmn bump. If third party module authors
allocate ap structs, it is their job to track against mmn
19 matches
Mail list logo
