----- Original Message ----
> From: Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>
> To: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
> Cc: Issac Goldstand <mar...@beamartyr.net>; apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 11:09:23 AM
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r733221 - in /httpd/apreq/branches/v2_10:
> include/apreq_version.h library/module_cgi.c library/parser.c
> module/apache2/handle.c
>
> On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 06:32 -0800, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Are you planning to pursue 2.10 as RM or
> > should we be moving on to 2.11? The only outstanding issue I am aware
> > of is pgollucci's claim that the perl modules aren't linking correctly
> > to libapreq2 on Solaris. While that would be nice to fix, I don't consider
> > it a showstopper either.
>
> I'm kinda waiting for the outcome of that discussion on the list before
> we go ahead. From what I can see, current decision is to have 2.11
> released, right? If so, let's roll that (I'm not attached to version
> numbers in any way).
I've looked over pgollucci's build tree on the perl zone and confirmed
that the perl .so modules cannot locate either libapreq2 nor libapr.
We may need to add more rpath-related stuff to our linking flags.
With respect to 2.10 or 2.11, it all depends on what we wanna do with that
v2_10 branch. It's current now, and I don't mind keeping it synced with
trunk if someone's planning to release from it this week. But if not, I
think we should move on to 2.11.
