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
HEAD of 2.4 now has errors with the test framework:
t/apache/expr_string.t .. 1/32 # Failed test 27 in
t/apache/expr_string.t at line 73 fail #10
# Failed test 28 in t/apache/expr_string.t at line 83 fail #9
# Failed test 29 in t/apache/expr_string.t at line 87
t/apache/expr_string.t
verbose:
# writing file:
/Users/jim/src/asf/code/stable/httpd-test/framework/t/htdocs/apache/expr/.htaccess
Error log should not have 'Internal evaluation error' or 'flex scanner jammed'
entries, found 1:
flex scanner jammed
not ok 27
Expected return code 200, got 500 for '%{tolower:"IDENT"}'
n
Hello,
I encounter a problem with the order of processing of output filters.
Maybe I'm missing some background but there's something very weird.
I'll show the example with mod_substitute but I imagine it's similar for
other modules (although I'm not sure).
Case 1:
Subst "s/x/1x/qn"
Subst
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Nick Gearls wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I encounter a problem with the order of processing of output filters.
> Maybe I'm missing some background but there's something very weird.
> I'll show the example with mod_substitute but I imagine it's similar for
> other modules (a
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 07:57:51AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> HEAD of 2.4 now has errors with the test framework:
>
> t/apache/expr_string.t .. 1/32 # Failed test 27 in
> t/apache/expr_string.t at line 73 fail #10
> # Failed test 28 in t/apache/expr_string.t at line 83 fail #9
> #
OK, this does not look like a regression, but instead a test not expected
to PASS under 2.4 (yet).
So I am thinking that a T&R of 2.4.29 is now a Go.
I will likely T&R later on today, say ~3pm eastern.
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 07:57:51AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> HEAD of 2.4 now has errors with the test framework:
>>
>> t/apache/expr_string.t .. 1/32 # Failed test 27 in
>> t/apache/expr_string.t at line 73 fail #10
>> # Failed
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 5:51 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
>
>> I tweaked it to
>> run for 2.5 only anyway.
>
> Jim reported three failures and you disabled one only, do the others
> work for you? Hmm, it seems it depends :/
OK, I can reproduce, a sin
The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd
version 2.4.29 can be found at the usual place:
http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.29 GA.
[ ] +1: Good to go
[ ] +0: meh
[ ] -1: Danger Will Robinson. And why.
Vote will last the norm
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 03:00:36PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> The pre-release test tarballs for Apache httpd
> version 2.4.29 can be found at the usual place:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>
> I'm calling a VOTE on releasing these as Apache httpd 2.4.29 GA.
+1 - looks good on Fe
Good point. The original desire was to have lib64 as fallback in order to keep
the default as is with lib. But probably the reverse order (64 over 32) makes
more sense these days.
Keen to hear what others say.
Regards
Rüdiger
Von: William A Rowe Jr [mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net]
Gesendet: Dienst
12 matches
Mail list logo
