On 02/24/09 00:19, Jeff Trawick wrote: > Seema Alevoor wrote: >> >> >> Jeff Trawick wrote: >>> Seema Alevoor wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Please review the webrev for CR 6782657 at >>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~seema/6782657/ >>> >>> +1 for this change >> Thanks for the review. >>> >>> To consider in the future: >>> * This patch obviously doesn't help/hurt the worker build, but over >>> the long haul it may be less confusing to keep the set of patches the >>> same for all Apache builds (32 vs 64, prefork vs worker) except when >>> absolutely necessary. >> Fine. I have updated the webrev >> (http://cr.opensolaris.org/~seema/6782657/ ) to apply the patch to the >> worker build. > > looks good (thanks!) > >>> * We'll be re-syncing our Apache delivery with Apache every six >>> months or so, but we can still have a handful of patches for fixes we >>> want to deliver sooner (such as this one, not yet in an Apache >>> release). It would be nice to have something installed with the >>> server which shows what has been fixed beyond the included Apache >>> release. A solution I've seen elsewhere is to install the CHANGES >>> file from the included Apache release, with CHANGES entries for the >>> applied patches at the top, above the "Changes with Apache 2.2.11" line. >>> >> Will handle it in the future. Probably you want to open a bug to track >> this ? > > I'll either open an RFE for this or start a different discussion thread > to see if there's any consensus for how to address this consideration > across the various web components. > > I noticed in a recent Lighttpd review package that a metadata file has a > one-liner for modifications such as patches, though that may be too > terse for the general audience. > Yes, we can use METADATA file to list the changes. But that doesn't get installed with the server.
>>> BTW, I didn't see --enable-exception-hook in the configure options, >>> but I thought I saw it in another webrev. Perhaps I/we neglected to >>> signal our review of it it? >>> >> Yeah....couple of reviews (sent last wk) are pending and one of them >> has the fix for --enable-exception-hook ! > > I'm looking at 6782613 and 6761354 next; I think you have the necessary Thanks ! > reviews for the two prior ones: 6782602 and 6782600. Those two have already been checked in. Thanks and Regards, Seema.
