Re: svn commit: r1812303 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

2017-10-16 Thread William A Rowe Jr
Seems Jim is +0 to back out and I'm +0 to keep. First strong opinion wins so we can get to tagging :) Absolute consensus on informing our apr, and httpd builders what not to pass as CFLAGS, and why. On Oct 16, 2017 13:58, "William A Rowe Jr" wrote: > If the patch has

Re: buildbot failure in on httpd-trunk

2017-10-16 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:48 AM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> Rainer, >> >> https://ci.apache.org/builders/httpd-trunk/builds/1203 >> >> would you please re-kick this build from a clean svn

buildbot success in on httpd-trunk

2017-10-16 Thread buildbot
The Buildbot has detected a restored build on builder httpd-trunk while building . Full details are available at: https://ci.apache.org/builders/httpd-trunk/builds/1205 Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/ Buildslave for this Build: bb_slave6_ubuntu Build Reason: The AnyBranchScheduler

Re: buildbot failure in on httpd-trunk

2017-10-16 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:48 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Rainer, > > https://ci.apache.org/builders/httpd-trunk/builds/1203 > > would you please re-kick this build from a clean svn checkout? I think we have > various mistakes in our exports.c preprocessor that become

Re: buildbot failure in on httpd-trunk

2017-10-16 Thread William A Rowe Jr
Rainer, https://ci.apache.org/builders/httpd-trunk/builds/1203 would you please re-kick this build from a clean svn checkout? I think we have various mistakes in our exports.c preprocessor that become tangled in any rebuild scenario. On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Rainer Jung

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

2017-10-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
I'd say we use STATUS to keep track

Re: svn commit: r1812303 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

2017-10-16 Thread William A Rowe Jr
If the patch has merit on it's own, without being generalized, then I'm fine with tagging 1.6.1 with the OS/X specific backport included. Note that the proposed httpd fix is still uneasy about the trunk flavor; https://ci.apache.org/builders/httpd-trunk/builds/1202 On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:11

Re: svn commit: r1812303 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

2017-10-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
The APR fix just handles macOS w/ Xcode9 or clang 5.0.0. -Werror can be set "externally" and whether or not we should actually die is debatable. But considering that AC_CHECK_LIB will never use function prototypes, the long term solution may be to simply never use that. I'm +0 on removing the

Re: svn commit: r1812303 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x/STATUS

2017-10-16 Thread William A Rowe Jr
I raised the question of whether the OS/X changes introduced and backported in APR are still necessary or desired, or if they should be backed out, and whether this patch, munged for APR_ macros, is needed for apr 1.6.3 tag? Yann suggests; On Oct 16, 2017 11:31, "Yann Ylavic"

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

2017-10-16 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > Am 16.10.2017 um 12:31 schrieb Joe Orton: >> >> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:51:54AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> >>> The long and short is that under maintainer mode, we cannot >>> expect AC_CHECK_LIB to being

Re: buildbot failure in on httpd-trunk

2017-10-16 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > Am 16.10.2017 um 11:23 schrieb build...@apache.org: >> >> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder httpd-trunk while >> building . Full details are available at: >>

Re: buildbot failure in on httpd-trunk

2017-10-16 Thread Rainer Jung
Am 16.10.2017 um 11:23 schrieb build...@apache.org: The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder httpd-trunk while building . Full details are available at: https://ci.apache.org/builders/httpd-trunk/builds/1199 Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/ Buildslave for this Build:

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

2017-10-16 Thread Rainer Jung
Am 16.10.2017 um 12:31 schrieb Joe Orton: On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:51:54AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: The long and short is that under maintainer mode, we cannot expect AC_CHECK_LIB to being correct any longer, because the combination of -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes means that any and all

gcc error (-Werror=pointer-compare) in trunk util_expr_eval.c

2017-10-16 Thread Rainer Jung
I get the following error for an old line (r1037504, but now trying maintainer-mode): .../server/util_expr_eval.c: In function 'ap_expr_eval_re_backref': .../server/util_expr_eval.c:265:63: error: comparison between pointer and zero character constant [-Werror=pointer-compare] if

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

2017-10-16 Thread Joe Orton
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:51:54AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > The long and short is that under maintainer mode, we cannot > expect AC_CHECK_LIB to being correct any longer, because > the combination of -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes means > that any and all functions looked for/checked for

buildbot failure in on httpd-trunk

2017-10-16 Thread buildbot
The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder httpd-trunk while building . Full details are available at: https://ci.apache.org/builders/httpd-trunk/builds/1199 Buildbot URL: https://ci.apache.org/ Buildslave for this Build: bb_slave6_ubuntu Build Reason: The AnyBranchScheduler

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

2017-10-16 Thread Yann Ylavic
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: > >> Am 15.10.2017 um 17:52 schrieb Rainer Jung : >> >> Nevertheless I would still say that adding "-Wno-error=strict-prototypes" >> for any clang and gcc version that supports it would

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

2017-10-16 Thread Jim Jagielski
I'd be +1 on setting -Wno-error=strict-prototypes unconditionally > On Oct 15, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Rainer Jung wrote: > > Am 15.10.2017 um 16:25 schrieb Yann Ylavic: >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: >>> >>> Why is this

Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

2017-10-16 Thread Stefan Eissing
> Am 15.10.2017 um 17:52 schrieb Rainer Jung : > > Am 15.10.2017 um 16:25 schrieb Yann Ylavic: >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: >>> >>> Why is this happening now? The "-Werror" was backported last December in >>>