Den Thursday 16 October 2008 17:20:08 skrev Sander Temme:
> On Oct 16, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Oden Eriksson wrote:
> > For some unknown reason I suddenly get some failed tests on Mandriva
> > Cooker,
> > it worked fine 2008-10-10 (!?)
>
> I saw that on my Solaris x86 VM, but it happened across the board
On Oct 16, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Oden Eriksson wrote:
For some unknown reason I suddenly get some failed tests on Mandriva
Cooker,
it worked fine 2008-10-10 (!?)
I saw that on my Solaris x86 VM, but it happened across the board
against 2.2.9 and the 2.2.10 rc. And, I didn't see it on either
Den Friday 10 October 2008 16:36:02 skrev Jim Jagielski:
For some unknown reason I suddenly get some failed tests on Mandriva Cooker,
it worked fine 2008-10-10 (!?)
t/modules/digestNOK 6/13# Failed test 6 in t/modules/digest.t at
line 84
t/modules/digestN
Tom Donovan wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> .msi*'s to direct at /dist/httpd/binaries/win32/, -symbols.zip*'s to
>> direct
>> at archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/symbols/, and the usual
>> httpd-2.2.10-win32-src.zip* files are all in the usual /dev/dist/
>> location.
>
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>　wrote on 2008-10-14 23:06
Tom Donovan wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I noticed a few little things building 2.2.10 with VC9 on Windows:
* the windows source .zip is missing most of apr-iconv - only the .mak
and .dep files are present.
With prev
The tarballs have been moved... will await for mirrors to
sync up
On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:56 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
We are plenty of binding (and non-binding) +1 votes... I will
start the process of doing the actual release. I will move the
tarballs over in the next few hours. I've also gon
We are plenty of binding (and non-binding) +1 votes... I will
start the process of doing the actual release. I will move the
tarballs over in the next few hours. I've also gone ahead and
updated the site docs (but not updated the site)
Tom Donovan wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>> .msi*'s to direct at /dist/httpd/binaries/win32/, -symbols.zip*'s to
>> direct
>> at archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/symbols/, and the usual
>> httpd-2.2.10-win32-src.zip* files are all in the usual /dev/dist/
>> location.
>>
> I
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
.msi*'s to direct at /dist/httpd/binaries/win32/, -symbols.zip*'s to direct
at archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/symbols/, and the usual
httpd-2.2.10-win32-src.zip* files are all in the usual /dev/dist/ location.
I noticed a few little things building 2.2.
+1
Greg
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
> like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
> release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
> close the vote on Tues AM.
>
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Mladen Turk wrote:
>> Oops. Wrong archive file (used 2.2.9 instead 2.2.10)
>> Builds fine, so +1
>> Windows 32
>> Windows 64
>
> Same here; +1 - .zip and .msi including 0.9.8i will be along shortly.
.msi*'s to direct at /dist/httpd/binaries/win32/, -symbols.zip*'s to
Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> Oops. Wrong archive file (used 2.2.9 instead 2.2.10)
> Builds fine, so +1
> Windows 32
> Windows 64
Same here; +1 - .zip and .msi including 0.9.8i will be along shortly.
> Sorry for the noise :)
And I need to read entire threads :)
Mladen Turk wrote:
>
> -1
> Doesn't build on Windows.
>
> apr-util included doesn't include the
> backport of r667437, so it break compiles with
> nasty warnings
>
> .\dbd\apr_dbd.c(101) : warning C4013: 'apu_dso_init' undefined
> .\dbd\apr_dbd.c(148) : warning C4013: 'apu_dso_mutex_lock' undefi
Mladen Turk wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
close the vote on Tues AM.
-1
Doesn't build on Windows.
apr-util included doe
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
close the vote on Tues AM.
-1
Doesn't build on Windows.
apr-util included doesn't include the
bac
On Oct 11, 2008, at 6:12 PM, Sander Temme wrote:
SunOS solaris10 5.10 Generic_137112-02 i86pc i386 i86pc
(in addition, tested SSL functionality with the nCipher plugin and
OpenSSL 0.9.8i from Sunfreeware, with positive result)
Oh yeah, I forgot. Used gcc by virtue of not bothering to specif
On 10/10/2008 04:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
> like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
> release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
> close the vote on Tues AM.
>
>
+1 for release.
Tested on
Solaris
On Oct 10, 2008, at 7:36 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
close the vote on Tues AM.
Tested on the following with the perl-fram
On 10/11/2008 09:52 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
>>> like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
>>> release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
>>> close the vote on T
Paul Querna wrote:
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
close the vote on Tues AM.
I've upgraded eos.apache.org and aurora.apache.org to
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
close the vote on Tues AM.
I've upgraded eos.apache.org and aurora.apache.org to 2.2.10, which are
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM, Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
> like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
> release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
> close the vote on Tues AM.
>
+1 for relea
Running stable in a production environment here.
Haven't notice any problems
+1
Jorge
On Fri, October 10, 2008 3:36 pm, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
> like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to release on
> Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
> close the vote on Tues AM.
>
After all my positive testing, t
Based on the positive feedback on the test tarballs, I'd
like to start a vote on releasing 2.2.10. I'm looking to
release on Tuesday, since I'll be traveling Monday, so I'll
close the vote on Tues AM.
25 matches
Mail list logo
