> 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
>>> r1772330, which was a backport of r1702948 from trunk (May
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 happening now? The "-Werror" was backported last Decem
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 be the correct option.
>> Then -Werror should automati
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 schedul
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 usin
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 (!ctx->r
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
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: bb_slav
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:
>> https://ci.apache.org/builders/httpd-trunk/builds/1199
>>
>> Bui
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 correct any longer, because
>>>
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
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
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
I'd say we use STATUS to keep track
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 wrote:
> Am 16.
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 tangled in any
> rebuild s
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 sche
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 checkout? I think we
>> have
>> various mistakes
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
Am 17.10.2017 um 02:19 schrieb 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 checkout? I think we
20 matches
Mail list logo