this change
besides just modernizing?
Regards,
KAM
On 3/3/2022 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
RAPTOR REMARK: Alert! Please be careful! This email is from an EXTERNAL sender.
Be aware of impersonation and credential theft.
I'm guessing we all heard the news that Linux is switching
to c99 from
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:54 AM Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I'm guessing we all heard the news that Linux is switching
> to c99 from c89.
>
> Time for us to consider it as well?
I thought they were skipping over c99 and going to c11.
I think httpd has an extra wrinkle with le
I'm guessing we all heard the news that Linux is switching
to c99 from c89.
Time for us to consider it as well?
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:01 PM, wrote:
> - Original Message -
> Subject: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?
> From: "Gregg Smith"
> Date: 9/4/14 12:47 pm
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org
>
> On 9/4/2014 8:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >
- Original Message - Subject: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?
From: "Gregg Smith"
Date: 9/4/14 12:47 pm
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
On 9/4/2014 8:49 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> I overlooked 2 other viable options
>
> [ ] Roll -win32-src-r2.zip with
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 to
understand the train of thought here
to inform my decision making on how we build our apache based server.
Thanks,
Andy
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 08:35 -0700, wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
> - Original Message -
> Subject: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?
&
s hosed and will likely segfault, in
the best case.
----- Original Message -
Subject: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?
From: "Issac Goldstand"
Date: 9/4/14 10:00 am
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
You can't, AFAIK, due to licensing. You need to include the *installer*
that c
n Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:27 -0700,
> wr...@rowe-clan.net<mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> Finally returned to VC6, having replaced my older svn on Windows
>> which would no longer handshake with svn.apache.org and bumped into
>> a single issue.
>>
>> Buildi
der svn on Windows
>
>which would no longer handshake with svn.apache.org and bumped into
>
>a single issue.
>
>
>
>Building VC6 binaries for win32, I was bitten by r1508904 which introduces
>
>a C99 type prior to releasing apr 2.0 (probably not a good idea to make
- Original Message - Subject: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?
From: "Wang, Andy"
Date: 9/4/14 9:48 am
To: "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
t then
manipulates these msvcr objects is hosed and will likely segfault, in
the best case.
- Original Message - Subject: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?
From: "Issac Goldstand"
Date: 9/4/14 10:00 am
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
You can't, AFAIK, due to licensi
r###.dll users.
>
>
> "Wang, Andy" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:27 -0700, wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
>> Finally returned to VC6, having replaced my older svn on Windows
>> which would no longer handshake with svn.apache.org and bumped into
>> a sin
-03 at 09:27 -0700, wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
> Finally returned to VC6, having replaced my older svn on Windows
> which would no longer handshake with svn.apache.org and bumped into
> a single issue.
>
> Building VC6 binaries for win32, I was bitten by r1508904 which
> introduces
&
wrote:
>> Finally returned to VC6, having replaced my older svn on Windows
>> which would no longer handshake with svn.apache.org and bumped into
>> a single issue.
>>
>> Building VC6 binaries for win32, I was bitten by r1508904 which
>> introduces
>> a C
-0700, wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote:
>> Finally returned to VC6, having replaced my older svn on Windows
>> which would no longer handshake with svn.apache.org and bumped into
>> a single issue.
>>
>> Building VC6 binaries for win32, I was bitten by r1508904 which
>&g
r1508904 which
> introduces
> a C99 type prior to releasing apr 2.0 (probably not a good idea to
> make
> such changes in a maintenance branch).
I don't mean to tangent this discussion too much but I'm curious.
So this change back in 2.2.26(?) was what finally made me start to use
visu
ship
as Gregg suggested just document in the README ...
Any preferences? If option 1 is elected, the second question is whether
to update the -win32-src.zip distro as an -r2? This will only affect the
VC6/Studio 97 builds, since the more recent visual studio releases have
some level of C99 su
That pesky intptr_t,
On 9/3/2014 9:27 AM, wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote
In terms of providing dist/httpd/binaries/win32 httpd 2.2.29 based on
msvcrt,dll, I have a couple of options;
[+1] Ship with r1563992 applied (and document this? where?)
[ +/-0] Drop apr_dbd_odbc.dll from the distribution
[ -
Finally returned to VC6, having replaced my older svn on Windows
which would no longer handshake with svn.apache.org and bumped into
a single issue.
Building VC6 binaries for win32, I was bitten by r1508904 which introduces
a C99 type prior to releasing apr 2.0 (probably not a good idea to make
20 matches
Mail list logo
