I've tried to build 3.1.4 from the tarball on minotaur and of course
it works. Could it be possible that the recent changes in the
configure script cause the problem ?
Regards,
Nicolas
2005/9/10, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I thought I'd it a shot on minotaur as well.
Poking around a
Jim Gallacher wrote ..
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
I've been away this weekend - just got back, but I'm too busy to try
to
read all the multiple-interpreter related comments. I guess my question
is - can someone provide a quick summary of how far we are from 3.2.1b
test
2005/9/8, Jorey Bump [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jim Gallacher wrote:
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Well, why not keep our plan of releasing 3.2 ASAP and save this
problem for a later 3.2.x as a bug fix ?
Making subsequent bug-fix releases should be fast and easy. We cannot
afford to repeat the long
On 09/09/2005, at 10:02 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:
As far as some future version breaking compatibility, I favour a
bigger jump in the major number: 3.2 - 4.0. This is server software
after all, and some people may prefer to maintain an older version for
a longer period, foregoing new features
I've been away this weekend - just got back, but I'm too busy to try to
read all the multiple-interpreter related comments. I guess my question is
- can someone provide a quick summary of how far we are from 3.2.1b test
tarbal?
Thanks!
Grisha
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Graham Dumpleton wrote:
Well, if I've understood Jim's mail, apart from the new MODPYTHON-77, we're all set.
Regards,
Nicolas2005/9/6, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've been away this weekend - just got back, but I'm too busy to try toread all the multiple-interpreter related comments. I guess my
Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
I've been away this weekend - just got back, but I'm too busy to try to
read all the multiple-interpreter related comments. I guess my question
is - can someone provide a quick summary of how far we are from 3.2.1b
test tarbal?
I've also been away for the
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
As Graham stated on the weekend, the use of thread states can be very
tricky. I think we should proceed with the 3.2.1b without the fix. That way
we can take the time to make sure we understand the issues and fix it in 3.3.
If that seems reasonable,
Or speaking in diff (not tested):
--- setup.py.in.orig2005-09-01 11:42:09.082202944 -0400
+++ setup.py.in 2005-09-01 11:44:35.969872624 -0400
@@ -140,18 +140,24 @@
# this is a hack to prevent build_ext from trying to append
initmod_python to the export symbols
On 01/09/2005, at 6:19 AM, Jim Gallacher wrote:Hey Gang,I think we are ready for the 3.2.1b release. If there are no objections in the next 24 hours I'll create the package and make the announcement on python-dev.Sounds good.I'll always be hoping to sneak in just one more change (eg.
Hi Jim,
The fix for MODPYTHON-72
should be easy, unfortunately I'm quite busy right now, since my first
daughter was born three days ago... I'll do my best to have a look at
it, but if someone feels like doing it, I'll understand.
Regards,
Nicolas2005/8/26, Jim Gallacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
Hi Jim,
The fix for MODPYTHON-72
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MODPYTHON-72 should be easy,
unfortunately I'm quite busy right now, since my first daughter was born
three days ago...
Congratulations Nicolas!
I'll do my best to have a look at it, but if
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Jim Gallacher wrote:
I think we should aim for the second beta release in the next couple of days.
I have a few questions and a list of outstanding issues.
Name of tarball: mod_python-3.2.1b.tgz?
yep, 3.2.1b
Also, I assume a new branch called tags/release-3.2.1-BETA
13 matches
Mail list logo
