Let's keep :)
> On Oct 16, 2017, at 11:54 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>
> 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 Oc
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 merit on it's own, without
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
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 chec
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" wrote:
I didn't lo
